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.
Matt Foley 2011-11-24, 01:20
Hi Eli,
I said a couple weeks ago that I intended to cut 205.1 on Nov 11 -- that's
the
subject line of this thread :-)  However, I got busy and did not make the
11/11/11
date, for which I apologize.

In the meantime, a severe blocker bug, HADOOP-7853, has been found and fixed
by folks at Yahoo, related to kerberos ticket renewal in secure
environments with Hive.
And HDFS-2246 has become available, and properly committed to trunk.
So I think it is good to incorporate both these issues.

I now plan to cut the RC for 205.1 sometime over this long weekend.
Since this thread has gotten a little off-topic, I will send a new email
announcing that.

Thanks,
--Matt

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hey Matt,
>
> On the jira Jitendra referenced a 205.1 deadline. Where did you set or
> communicate that deadline? The  last I saw on the lists (this thread)
> was that the 205.1 code freeze was Nov 11th.
>
> Thanks,
> Eli
>
> 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
> >