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

Switch to Plain View
Hadoop >> mail # general >> [VOTE] Release hadoop-2.0.0-alpha


+
Arun C Murthy 2012-05-09, 16:58
+
Andrew Purtell 2012-05-09, 17:17
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-05-09, 18:30
+
Andrew Purtell 2012-05-09, 18:33
+
Suresh Srinivas 2012-05-09, 20:45
+
Andrew Purtell 2012-05-10, 01:05
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-05-10, 05:00
+
Andrew Purtell 2012-05-10, 18:23
+
Andrew Purtell 2012-05-10, 18:30
+
Andrew Purtell 2012-05-10, 18:37
+
Eli Collins 2012-05-09, 17:05
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-05-09, 18:28
+
Eli Collins 2012-05-10, 05:10
+
Ahmed Radwan 2012-05-10, 00:13
+
Eli Collins 2012-05-12, 02:19
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-05-13, 05:05
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-05-14, 16:54
+
Uma Maheswara Rao G 2012-05-14, 17:56
+
Tsz Wo Sze 2012-05-14, 18:07
+
Uma Maheswara Rao G 2012-05-14, 18:23
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-05-14, 18:10
+
Tsz Wo Sze 2012-05-14, 19:16
+
Eli Collins 2012-05-14, 20:32
+
Siddharth Seth 2012-05-14, 21:14
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] Release hadoop-2.0.0-alpha
Hey Arun,

One more thing on the rc tarball: the source artifact doesn't appear
to be an exact svn export, based on a diff. For example, it includes
the README, NOTICE, and LICENSE files, as well as a few other things
which appear to be build artifacts (eg
hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/downloads,
hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/test_edit_log, etc).

It seems like we _should_ have the various README style files, but we
shouldn't have the test artifacts in our source release.

In order to get our source release to match svn, perhaps we should
move NOTICE, README, LICENSE, etc to the top level of our svn repo,
such that a pure svn export would be a releaseable source artifact?

-Todd

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Siddharth Seth
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do we want to get MAPREDUCE-4067 in as well ? It affects folks who may be
> writing their own AMs. Shouldn't affect MR clients though. I believe 2.0
> alpha doesn't freeze the Yarn protocols for the 2.0 branch, so probably not
> critical.
>
> Thanks
> - Sid
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> As soon as jira is back up and I can post an updated patch I'll merge
>> HDFS-3418 (also incompatible).
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I just have merged HADOOP-8285 and HADOOP-8366.  I also have merged
>> HDFS-3211 since it is an incompatible protocol change (without it,
>> 2.0.0-alphaand 2.0.0 will be incompatible.)
>> >
>> > Tsz-Wo
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Tsz Wo Sze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Cc:
>> > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 11:07 AM
>> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release hadoop-2.0.0-alpha
>> >
>> > Let me merge HADOOP-8285 and HADOOP-8366.  Thanks.
>> > Tsz-Wo
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Uma Maheswara Rao G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Cc:
>> > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:56 AM
>> > Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release hadoop-2.0.0-alpha
>> >
>> >> a) Revert HDFS-3157 and commit HADOOP-8285 and HADOOP-8366 on
>> >> branch-2.0.0-alpha, so these are the only changes since rc0. Roll a
>> >> new rc1 from here.
>> > I have merged HDFS-3157 revert.
>> > Do you mind taking a look at HADOOP-8285 and HADOOP-8366?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Uma
>> > ________________________________________
>> > From: Arun C Murthy [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:24 PM
>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release hadoop-2.0.0-alpha
>> >
>> > Todd,
>> >
>> > Please go ahead and merge changes into branch-2.0.0-alpha and I'll roll
>> RC1.
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> > Arun
>> >
>> > On May 12, 2012, at 10:05 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
>> >
>> >> Looking at the release tag vs the current state of branch-2, I have
>> >> two concerns from the point of view of HDFS:
>> >>
>> >> 1) We reverted HDFS-3157 in branch-2 because it sends deletions for
>> >> corrupt replicas without properly going through the "corrupt block"
>> >> path. We saw this cause data loss in TestPipelinesFailover. So, I'm
>> >> nervous about putting it in a release, even labeled as alpha.
>> >>
>> >> 2) HADOOP-8285 and HADOOP-8366 changed the wire format for the RPC
>> >> envelope in branch-2, but didn't make it into this rc. So, that would
>> >> mean that future alphas would not be protocol-compatible with this
>> >> alpha. Per a discussion a few weeks ago, I think we all were in
>> >> agreement that, if possible, we'd like all 2.x to be compatible for
>> >> client-server communication, at least (even if we don't support
>> >> cross-version for the intra-cluster protocols)
>> >>
>> >> Do other folks think it's worth rolling an rc1? I would propose either:
>> >> a) Revert HDFS-3157 and commit HADOOP-8285 and HADOOP-8366 on
>> >> branch-2.0.0-alpha, so these are the only changes since rc0. Roll a
>> >> new rc1 from here.
>>
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera
+
Kumar Ravi 2012-05-15, 15:51
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-05-15, 17:00
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-05-15, 17:05
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-05-15, 18:10
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-05-15, 18:55
+
Eli Collins 2012-05-15, 18:58
+
Eli Collins 2012-05-15, 19:04
+
Robert Evans 2012-05-09, 18:20
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-05-16, 02:20
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-05-16, 05:30
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-05-16, 06:06
+
Steve Loughran 2012-05-17, 00:52
+
Eli Collins 2012-05-16, 23:11
+
Ahmed Radwan 2012-05-21, 23:59
+
Suresh Srinivas 2012-05-22, 13:49
+
Robert Evans 2012-05-16, 07:04
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-05-16, 22:35
+
sanjay Radia 2012-05-22, 07:14
+
Uma Maheswara Rao G 2012-05-21, 08:34
+
Matt Foley 2012-05-21, 19:23
+
Devaraj Das 2012-05-21, 23:14
+
Siddharth Seth 2012-05-22, 05:45
+
Mahadev Konar 2012-05-21, 20:17
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-05-23, 17:22
+
Matt Foley 2012-05-23, 17:31
+
Thomas Graves 2012-05-17, 15:16
+
Jitendra Pandey 2012-05-18, 02:00
+
Devaraj k 2012-05-21, 06:13
+
Roman Shaposhnik 2012-05-17, 23:01
+
Tsz Wo \ 2012-05-22, 21:13