Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop >> mail # general >> Heads Up - hadoop-2.0.3 release


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Heads Up - hadoop-2.0.3 release
OK, QJM is now in branch-2. I also merged all the follow-up patches I
could find so that branch-2 and trunk should be equivalent with regard
to QJM functionality at this point. If anyone sees anything I missed,
feel free to give me a holler.

Thanks
Todd

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Arun Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Todd!
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2012, at 6:04 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hey Arun,
>>
>> I put up patches for the QJM backport merge yesterday. Aaron said he'd
>> take a look at reviewing them, so I anticipate that to be finished
>> "real soon now". Sorry for the delay.
>>
>> -Todd
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Lohit,
>>>
>>> There are some outstanding blockers and I'm still awaiting the QJM merge.
>>>
>>> Feel free to watch the blocker list:
>>> http://s.apache.org/e1J
>>>
>>> Arun
>>>
>>> On Dec 3, 2012, at 10:02 AM, lohit wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Hadoop Release managers,
>>>> Any update on this?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Lohit
>>>>
>>>> 2012/11/20 Tom White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Siddharth Seth
>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> YARN-142/MAPREDUCE-4067 should ideally be fixed before we commit to API
>>>>>> backward compatibility. Also, from the recent YARN meetup - there seemed
>>>>> to
>>>>>> be a requirement to change the AM-RM protocol for container requests. In
>>>>>> this case, I believe it's OK to not have all functionality implemented,
>>>>> as
>>>>>> long as the protocol itself can represent the requirements.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. Do you think we can make these changes before removing the
>>>>> 'alpha' label, i.e. in 2.0.3? If that's not possible for the container
>>>>> requests change, then we could mark AMRMProtocol (or related classes)
>>>>> as @Evolving. Another alternative would be to introduce a new
>>>>> interface.
>>>>>
>>>>>> However, as
>>>>>> Bobby pointed out, given the current adoption by other projects -
>>>>>> incompatible changes at this point can be problematic and needs to be
>>>>>> figured out.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have a mechanism for this already. If something is marked as
>>>>> @Evolving it can change incompatibly between minor versions - e.g.
>>>>> 2.0.x to 2.1.0. If it is @Stable then it can only change on major
>>>>> versions, e.g. 2.x.y to 3.0.0. Let's make sure we are happy with the
>>>>> annotations - and willing to support them at the indicated level -
>>>>> before we remove the 'alpha' label. Of course, we strive not to change
>>>>> APIs without a very good reason, but if we do we should do so within
>>>>> the guidelines so that users know what to expect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> - Sid
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am OK with removing the alpha assuming that we think that the APIs are
>>>>>>> stable enough that we are willing to truly start maintaining backwards
>>>>>>> compatibility on them within 2.X. From what I have seen I think that
>>>>> they
>>>>>>> are fairly stable and I think there is enough adoption by other projects
>>>>>>> right now that breaking backwards compatibility would be problematic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --Bobby Evans
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/16/12 11:34 PM, "Stack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Aaron T. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Arun,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Given that the 2.0.3 release is intended to reflect the growing
>>>>>>>>> stability
>>>>>>>>> of YARN, and the QJM work will be included in 2.0.3 which provides a
>>>>>>>>> complete HDFS HA solution, I think it's time we consider removing the
>>>>>>>>> "-alpha" label from the release version. My preference would be to
>>>>>>>>> remove
>>>>>>>>> the label entirely, but we could also perhaps call it "-beta" or
>>>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it fine after two minor releases undoing the '-alpha' suffix.

Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB