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

Switch to Plain View
Hadoop >> mail # general >> [VOTE] - Establish YARN as a sub-project of Apache Hadoop


+
Arun C Murthy 2012-07-27, 03:24
+
Jun Ping Du 2012-07-27, 08:01
+
Siddharth Seth 2012-07-27, 06:59
+
Todd Papaioannou 2012-07-27, 05:39
+
Hitesh Shah 2012-07-27, 04:11
+
Mahadev Konar 2012-07-27, 03:53
+
Edward J. Yoon 2012-07-27, 03:56
+
Tsz Wo \ 2012-07-27, 04:53
+
Suresh Srinivas 2012-07-27, 21:26
+
Owen OMalley 2012-07-30, 15:52
+
Harsh J 2012-07-27, 21:20
+
Aaron T. Myers 2012-07-27, 14:10
+
Tom White 2012-07-27, 13:44
+
Steve Loughran 2012-07-27, 18:58
+
Jonathan Eagles 2012-07-30, 15:57
+
Eli Collins 2012-07-30, 15:52
+
Daryn Sharp 2012-07-31, 18:53
+
Devaraj Das 2012-07-31, 21:46
+
Uma Maheswara Rao G 2012-08-01, 04:17
+
Stephan Kang 2012-08-01, 13:34
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-08-03, 07:51
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-08-08, 19:29
+
Tom White 2012-08-13, 21:01
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-08-14, 18:19
+
Robert Evans 2012-08-14, 18:27
+
Tom White 2012-08-15, 00:44
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-08-15, 15:52
+
Tom White 2012-08-15, 21:24
+
Eli Collins 2012-08-15, 21:27
+
Suresh Srinivas 2012-08-16, 18:27
+
Aaron T. Myers 2012-08-16, 20:38
+
Mattmann, Chris A 2012-08-16, 19:59
+
Eli Collins 2012-08-16, 20:08
+
Mattmann, Chris A 2012-08-16, 20:11
+
Eli Collins 2012-08-16, 20:21
+
Mattmann, Chris A 2012-08-16, 20:41
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2012-08-16, 21:34
+
Chris Douglas 2012-08-17, 00:41
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] - Establish YARN as a sub-project of Apache Hadoop
Woah, I'm gone for one day and miss out a lot of fun - thank god for little mercies! :)

A couple of quick responses before I need to run again...

> However, contrary appeals to emotional reasoning citing "exclusion" or
> a "lack of trust in contributors" are lazy and invalid. The proposal
> is a dry partitioning for a specific, administrative purpose: to be
> transparent about criteria to be included in a Yarn
I thought I already did, but my bad - apologies. Looks like a couple of people asked, here you go:

I included everyone with 20 patches and then, on Tom's suggestion, anyone with 10 commits - both for a period of 18 months.
(The list doesn't change if we go with a filter of 15 patches for the same period.)
Is thought it was a reasonably small bar, no? Should we go higher?

Regarding why this wasn't discussed before, not sure - but we are discussing now after Tom asked to make up.
And boy, are we *discussing*! :)

Arun
+
Sharad Agarwal 2012-08-17, 05:53
+
Doug Cutting 2012-08-21, 22:46
+
Eli Collins 2012-08-21, 23:13
+
Doug Cutting 2012-08-22, 18:38
+
Eli Collins 2012-08-22, 18:43
+
Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli 2012-08-23, 18:13
+
Eli Collins 2012-08-23, 18:33
+
Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli 2012-08-24, 02:11
+
Eli Collins 2012-08-24, 04:08
+
Inder.dev Java 2012-08-23, 19:43
+
Ted Dunning 2012-08-17, 17:13
+
Thomas Graves 2012-08-13, 14:16
+
Jason Lowe 2012-08-13, 15:37
+
Ryan Grymes 2012-08-13, 15:37
+
Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli 2012-08-16, 22:31
+
Eric Baldeschwieler 2012-08-15, 03:00
+
Aaron T. Myers 2012-08-15, 05:58
+
Robert Evans 2012-07-27, 13:33
+
Thomas Graves 2012-07-27, 13:02