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

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


+
Arun C Murthy 2012-11-16, 06:41
+
lohit 2012-11-16, 20:58
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-11-16, 21:14
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-11-16, 23:34
+
Aaron T. Myers 2012-11-16, 23:38
+
Stack 2012-11-17, 05:34
+
Robert Evans 2012-11-19, 16:22
+
Siddharth Seth 2012-11-19, 18:09
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-11-19, 19:08
+
Tom White 2012-11-20, 12:41
+
lohit 2012-12-03, 18:02
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-12-04, 14:09
+
Aaron T. Myers 2012-12-06, 02:59
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-12-05, 02:03
+
Arun Murthy 2012-12-05, 02:56
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
+
Suresh Srinivas 2012-11-19, 19:39
+
Bikas Saha 2012-11-20, 05:18
+
Steve Loughran 2012-11-19, 20:41
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-12-18, 19:45
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-12-19, 04:15
+
Aaron T. Myers 2012-12-19, 04:43
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-12-19, 05:00
+
Aaron T. Myers 2012-12-19, 05:07
+
Heather Bales 2012-12-19, 16:15
+
Prabakaran Krishnan 2012-12-19, 11:26
+
Steve Loughran 2012-12-19, 14:10
+
Arun C Murthy 2013-01-16, 14:52
+
Suresh Srinivas 2013-01-16, 18:30
+
Arun C Murthy 2013-01-16, 18:38
+
Alejandro Abdelnur 2013-01-25, 00:35
+
Roman Shaposhnik 2013-01-28, 23:11
+
Roman Shaposhnik 2013-01-29, 16:51
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-01-29, 17:21
+
Arun C Murthy 2013-01-29, 17:51
+
Roman Shaposhnik 2013-01-31, 05:01
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-01-31, 05:15
+
Bhandarkar, Milind 2012-11-17, 00:05
+
Alejandro Abdelnur 2012-11-17, 04:27
+
Robert Evans 2012-11-19, 16:27
+
Mariappan Asokan 2012-11-19, 17:18
+
Marcos Ortiz Valmaseda 2012-11-19, 17:45