Hi,

Based on a couple other threads, I think it'd be great if we could release a Flume 1.3.1 with just the file channel fixes that went in after Flume 1.3.0, specifically the fix that was committed yesterday - FLUME-1794, which fixed a major performance regression in Flume 1.3.0. I am willing to spin the RC if there is no objection.
Thanks,
Hari

--
Hari Shreedharan

+1 to do 1.3.1 release
+1 to Hari as PM

Jarcec

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:37:25PM -0800, Hari Shreedharan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Based on a couple other threads, I think it'd be great if we could release a Flume 1.3.1 with just the file channel fixes that went in after Flume 1.3.0, specifically the fix that was committed yesterday - FLUME-1794, which fixed a major performance regression in Flume 1.3.0. I am willing to spin the RC if there is no objection.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Hari
>
> --
> Hari Shreedharan
>

Agreed:

+1 to do 1.3.1 release
+1 to Hari as PM

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> +1 to do 1.3.1 release
> +1 to Hari as PM
>
> Jarcec
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:37:25PM -0800, Hari Shreedharan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Based on a couple other threads, I think it'd be great if we could
> release a Flume 1.3.1 with just the file channel fixes that went in after
> Flume 1.3.0, specifically the fix that was committed yesterday -
> FLUME-1794, which fixed a major performance regression in Flume 1.3.0. I am
> willing to spin the RC if there is no objection.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Hari
> >
> > --
> > Hari Shreedharan
> >
>

+1 on 1.3.1. and Hari as PM

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Will McQueen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Agreed:
>
> +1 to do 1.3.1 release
> +1 to Hari as PM
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> +1 to do 1.3.1 release
>> +1 to Hari as PM
>>
>> Jarcec
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:37:25PM -0800, Hari Shreedharan wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Based on a couple other threads, I think it'd be great if we could
>> release a Flume 1.3.1 with just the file channel fixes that went in after
>> Flume 1.3.0, specifically the fix that was committed yesterday -
>> FLUME-1794, which fixed a major performance regression in Flume 1.3.0. I am
>> willing to spin the RC if there is no objection.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Hari
>> >
>> > --
>> > Hari Shreedharan
>> >
>>

--
Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Hari Shreedharan <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Based on a couple other threads, I think it'd be great if we could release
> a Flume 1.3.1 with just the file channel fixes that went in after Flume
> 1.3.0, specifically the fix that was committed yesterday - FLUME-1794,
> which fixed a major performance regression in Flume 1.3.0. I am willing to
> spin the RC if there is no objection.
>

+1 on doing a 1.3.1 release
+1 on Hari as release manager

Regards,
Mike

+1 for this.

The performance difference is very noticable. If you run ganglia, there
is a huge chunk of system cpu added. We were going to make a custom 1.3
build with 1773(which I would also recommend for a 1.3.1 release) and
1794, but ended up going with the 1.4 trunk since there are no changes
that look like they'd cause problems.

On 12/20/2012 05:37 AM, Hari Shreedharan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Based on a couple other threads, I think it'd be great if we could release a Flume 1.3.1 with just the file channel fixes that went in after Flume 1.3.0, specifically the fix that was committed yesterday - FLUME-1794, which fixed a major performance regression in Flume 1.3.0. I am willing to spin the RC if there is no objection.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Hari
>

+1 for both

On Dec 20, 2012, at 3:57 AM, Mike Percy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> +1 on doing a 1.3.1 release
> +1 on Hari as release manager

Looking at the code, all of the FileChannel changes should probably go in -
none of them seem too risky - plus applying these specific patches may not
be clean without the others that went in. So I am planning to pull in all
the patches that went into the File Channel. Are there any other patches we
should consider?
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Alexander Alten-Lorenz <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> +1 for both
>
>
>
> On Dec 20, 2012, at 3:57 AM, Mike Percy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > +1 on doing a 1.3.1 release
> > +1 on Hari as release manager
>
>

I just pushed a new branch flume-1.3.1, which contains the File Channel
patches. Please let me know if there is a concern about a particular patch
or a missing one.
Hari
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Hari Shreedharan <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Looking at the code, all of the FileChannel changes should probably go in
> - none of them seem too risky - plus applying these specific patches may
> not be clean without the others that went in. So I am planning to pull in
> all the patches that went into the File Channel. Are there any other
> patches we should consider?
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Alexander Alten-Lorenz <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> +1 for both
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 20, 2012, at 3:57 AM, Mike Percy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > +1 on doing a 1.3.1 release
>> > +1 on Hari as release manager
>>
>>
>

I updated several tickets with fixVersion v1.3.1. Please let me know if anyone would like more patches to go into the release. This is primarily a maintenance release, so no new features are expected to be added.

--
Hari Shreedharan
On Thursday, December 20, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Hari Shreedharan wrote:

> I just pushed a new branch flume-1.3.1, which contains the File Channel patches. Please let me know if there is a concern about a particular patch or a missing one.
>
>
> Hari
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Hari Shreedharan <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])> wrote:
> > Looking at the code, all of the FileChannel changes should probably go in - none of them seem too risky - plus applying these specific patches may not be clean without the others that went in. So I am planning to pull in all the patches that went into the File Channel. Are there any other patches we should consider?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Alexander Alten-Lorenz <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])> wrote:
> > > +1 for both
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 20, 2012, at 3:57 AM, Mike Percy <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 on doing a 1.3.1 release
> > > > +1 on Hari as release manager
> > >
> >
>

Thanks for making this release.   Can we also include FLUME-1788 and
FLUME-1795

Thanks

Venkat

I suppose both these are low risk changes. If anyone disagrees, please let me know - otherwise I will pull in these as well.
Thanks,
Hari

--
Hari Shreedharan
On Thursday, December 20, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Venkat Rangan wrote:

> Thanks for making this release. Can we also include FLUME-1788 and
> FLUME-1795
>
> Thanks
>
> Venkat

Thanks Hari for adding these two.   That helps have a cleaner run of tests
in a few environments

Thanks

Venkat

-----Original Message-----
From: Hari Shreedharan
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Flume 1.3.1

I suppose both these are low risk changes. If anyone disagrees, please let
me know - otherwise I will pull in these as well.
Thanks,
Hari

--
Hari Shreedharan
On Thursday, December 20, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Venkat Rangan wrote:

> Thanks for making this release. Can we also include FLUME-1788 and
> FLUME-1795
>
> Thanks
>
> Venkat