Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop >> mail # dev >> [ANNOUNCE] Intend to build a 0.20.205.1 candidate next Friday 11 Nov.


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Intend to build a 0.20.205.1 candidate next Friday 11 Nov.
On Nov 23, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Matt,
>
> quick question: any reason we are ignoring multifilewc from hadoop examples?
>

Roman - It isn't marked as a blocker nor is there a patch.

Can you provide one?

Arun

> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-3319
>
> would be nice to fix it for 1.0 of Hadoop. Or at least disable.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Matt Foley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I really want this in 0.20.205.1, which will be Hadoop 1.0.0, because of
>> its importance for
>> good support of HBase.
>>
>> Jitendra, please merge it to branch-0.20-security-205.
>>
>> --Matt (wearing my Apache release manager hat)
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Suresh Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for Jitendra's proposal.
>>>
>>> Additionally, most of the core of the code that this patch is based on has
>>> been tested and deployed in clusters at TrendMicro and Facebook.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Jitendra Pandey
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> The trunk, 206 patches for HDFS-2246 have been committed. I think it
>>> makes
>>>> sense to commit it to 205.1 as well for following reasons (most of it has
>>>> already been mentioned)
>>>> a) We intended this patch for 205, but couldn't finish in time. Now that
>>>> 205.1 branch is still not cut, we could get this in.
>>>> b) This is not a very risky change. Most of it is new code and will be
>>>> disabled by default the feature will be disabled.
>>>> c) The performance benefits are very good, as reported by Todd on the
>>> jira.
>>>> Hbase installations will significantly benefit from it.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Matt Foley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, I believe in the HDFS-2246 Jira, Todd requested extra time to
>>>>> review,
>>>>>>> due to commitments at Hadoop World.  Todd, would Monday be
>>> sufficient
>>>>> extra
>>>>>>> time, so as not to slow down the anticipated release schedule too
>>>> much?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I will probably have time to review it by Monday. But the
>>>>>> review-time concern is separate from the concern about which version
>>>>>> this should go into.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewing this now... though I still think it shoudl target 0.20.206,
>>>>> not 0.20.205.1.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Todd
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey guys,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HDFS-2246 is not a fix, it's a non-trivial performance
>>> optimization.
>>>>>>>> The roadmap page is pretty clear..  "Point releases are made to fix
>>>>>>>> critical bugs. They do not introduce new features or make other
>>>>>>>> improvements other than fixing bugs".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not opposed to the change, I'm just pointing out that we agreed
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> develop trunk first, and we agreed to follow the release policies
>>> for
>>>>>>>> the sustaining branch. I don't see why we can't honor those
>>>>>>>> agreements, ie why not post a patch for trunk first and then
>>> backport
>>>>>>>> it to 206? Reasonable?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Eli
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Suresh Srinivas <
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Eli,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As Jitendra indicated in the jira, this was originally supposed
>>> to
>>>> be
>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>> of 0.205. Due to time crunc, we could not get this done in 0.205.
>>>>> This
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> be turned off by a flag and only can be enabled by users who want
>>>> to
>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>> the functionality. Given that, I feel it is okay to go into
>>>> 0.205.1.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree it would be good to have a trunk patch for this and make
>>> it
>>>>> part
>>>>