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

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop, mail # dev - [VOTE] Release candidate 0.20.203.0-rc0


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] Release candidate 0.20.203.0-rc0
Konstantin Boudnik 2011-05-03, 18:33
Yup, exactly right - it has been reverted in the trunk as well. Thanks
for digging this up, Koji!

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 11:22, Koji Noguchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> except
>>> HADOOP-6386 and HADOOP-6428.
>> causes a rolling port side effect in TT
>>
> I remember bugging Cos and Rob to revert HADOOP-6386.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-6760?focusedCommentId=12867342&
> page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#commen
> t-12867342
>
> Koji
>
> On 5/2/11 9:43 PM, "Konstantin Boudnik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 16:56, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On May 2, 2011, at 3:01 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On May 2, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Tom White wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I just did a quick search, and these are the JIRAs that are in 0.20.2
>>>>> but appear not to be in 0.20.203.0.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Tom.
>>>>
>>>> I did a quick analysis:
>>>>
>>>> # Remaining for 0.20.203
>>>>  * HADOOP-5611
>>>>  * HADOOP-5612
>>>>  * HADOOP-5623
>>>>  * HDFS-596
>>>>  * HDFS-723
>>>>  * HDFS-732
>>>>  * HDFS-579
>>>>  * MAPREDUCE-1070
>>>>  * HADOOP-6315
>>>>  * MAPREDUCE-1163
>>>>  * HADOOP-5759
>>>>  * HADOOP-6269
>>>>  * HADOOP-6386
>>>>  * HADOOP-6428
>>>>
>>>
>>> Owen, Suresh and I have committed everything on this list except
>>> HADOOP-6386 and HADOOP-6428. Not sure which of the two are
>>> relevant/necessary, I'll check with Cos.  Other than that hadoop-0.20.203
>>> now a superset of hadoop-0.20.2.
>>>
>>
>> I have looked somewhat more into these two JIRAs and if I remember correctly
>> this fix causes a rolling port side effect in TT and it has been reverted in
>> 0.20.200 (Y! Fred? release) because Ops weren't happy about this (I am sure
>> you can check internal Git to cross-verify my recollection).
>>
>> Considering above, these might be better left outside of the release and,
>> perhaps, they should be reverted in trunk as well.
>>
>> Cos
>>
>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Arun
>>>
>
>