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

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop, mail # dev - [ANNOUNCE] Intend to build a 0.20.205.1 candidate next Friday 11 Nov.


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Intend to build a 0.20.205.1 candidate next Friday 11 Nov.
Roman Shaposhnik 2011-11-24, 01:14
Hi Matt,

quick question: any reason we are ignoring multifilewc from hadoop examples?
   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-3319

would be nice to fix it for 1.0 of Hadoop. Or at least disable.

Thanks,
Roman.

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Matt Foley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I really want this in 0.20.205.1, which will be Hadoop 1.0.0, because of
> its importance for
> good support of HBase.
>
> Jitendra, please merge it to branch-0.20-security-205.
>
> --Matt (wearing my Apache release manager hat)
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Suresh Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> +1 for Jitendra's proposal.
>>
>> Additionally, most of the core of the code that this patch is based on has
>> been tested and deployed in clusters at TrendMicro and Facebook.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Jitendra Pandey
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>
>> > The trunk, 206 patches for HDFS-2246 have been committed. I think it
>> makes
>> > sense to commit it to 205.1 as well for following reasons (most of it has
>> > already been mentioned)
>> > a) We intended this patch for 205, but couldn't finish in time. Now that
>> > 205.1 branch is still not cut, we could get this in.
>> > b) This is not a very risky change. Most of it is new code and will be
>> > disabled by default the feature will be disabled.
>> > c) The performance benefits are very good, as reported by Todd on the
>> jira.
>> > Hbase installations will significantly benefit from it.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Matt Foley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Also, I believe in the HDFS-2246 Jira, Todd requested extra time to
>> > > review,
>> > > >> due to commitments at Hadoop World.  Todd, would Monday be
>> sufficient
>> > > extra
>> > > >> time, so as not to slow down the anticipated release schedule too
>> > much?
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes, I will probably have time to review it by Monday. But the
>> > > > review-time concern is separate from the concern about which version
>> > > > this should go into.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Reviewing this now... though I still think it shoudl target 0.20.206,
>> > > not 0.20.205.1.
>> > >
>> > > -Todd
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> Hey guys,
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> HDFS-2246 is not a fix, it's a non-trivial performance
>> optimization.
>> > > >>> The roadmap page is pretty clear..  "Point releases are made to fix
>> > > >>> critical bugs. They do not introduce new features or make other
>> > > >>> improvements other than fixing bugs".
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> I'm not opposed to the change, I'm just pointing out that we agreed
>> > to
>> > > >>> develop trunk first, and we agreed to follow the release policies
>> for
>> > > >>> the sustaining branch. I don't see why we can't honor those
>> > > >>> agreements, ie why not post a patch for trunk first and then
>> backport
>> > > >>> it to 206? Reasonable?
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Thanks,
>> > > >>> Eli
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Suresh Srinivas <
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > >>> wrote:
>> > > >>> > Eli,
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > As Jitendra indicated in the jira, this was originally supposed
>> to
>> > be
>> > > >>> part
>> > > >>> > of 0.205. Due to time crunc, we could not get this done in 0.205.
>> > > This
>> > > >>> can
>> > > >>> > be turned off by a flag and only can be enabled by users who want
>> > to
>> > > use
>> > > >>> > the functionality. Given that, I feel it is okay to go into
>> > 0.205.1.
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > I agree it would be good to have a trunk patch for this and make
>> it
>> > > part
>> > > >>> of
>> > > >>> > 0.23.
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > Regards,
>> > > >>> > Suresh
>> > > >>>