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

Switch to Plain View
Hadoop >> mail # general >> [VOTE] Release hadoop-2.0.0-alpha


+
Arun C Murthy 2012-05-09, 16:58
+
Andrew Purtell 2012-05-09, 17:17
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-05-09, 18:30
+
Andrew Purtell 2012-05-09, 18:33
+
Suresh Srinivas 2012-05-09, 20:45
+
Andrew Purtell 2012-05-10, 01:05
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-05-10, 05:00
+
Andrew Purtell 2012-05-10, 18:23
+
Andrew Purtell 2012-05-10, 18:30
+
Andrew Purtell 2012-05-10, 18:37
+
Eli Collins 2012-05-09, 17:05
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-05-09, 18:28
+
Eli Collins 2012-05-10, 05:10
+
Ahmed Radwan 2012-05-10, 00:13
+
Eli Collins 2012-05-12, 02:19
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-05-13, 05:05
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-05-14, 16:54
+
Uma Maheswara Rao G 2012-05-14, 17:56
+
Tsz Wo Sze 2012-05-14, 18:07
+
Uma Maheswara Rao G 2012-05-14, 18:23
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-05-14, 18:10
+
Tsz Wo Sze 2012-05-14, 19:16
+
Eli Collins 2012-05-14, 20:32
+
Siddharth Seth 2012-05-14, 21:14
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-05-15, 04:20
+
Kumar Ravi 2012-05-15, 15:51
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-05-15, 17:00
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-05-15, 17:05
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-05-15, 18:10
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] Release hadoop-2.0.0-alpha
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any more HDFS related merges before I roll RC1?

I'm good as is. Thanks!

>
> On May 15, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>
>> Eli, is this done so I can roll rc1?
>>
>> On May 14, 2012, at 1:32 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
>>
>>> As soon as jira is back up and I can post an updated patch I'll merge
>>> HDFS-3418 (also incompatible).
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> I just have merged HADOOP-8285 and HADOOP-8366.  I also have merged HDFS-3211 since it is an incompatible protocol change (without it, 2.0.0-alphaand 2.0.0 will be incompatible.)
>>>>
>>>> Tsz-Wo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Tsz Wo Sze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> Cc:
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 11:07 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release hadoop-2.0.0-alpha
>>>>
>>>> Let me merge HADOOP-8285 and HADOOP-8366.  Thanks.
>>>> Tsz-Wo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Uma Maheswara Rao G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> Cc:
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:56 AM
>>>> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release hadoop-2.0.0-alpha
>>>>
>>>>> a) Revert HDFS-3157 and commit HADOOP-8285 and HADOOP-8366 on
>>>>> branch-2.0.0-alpha, so these are the only changes since rc0. Roll a
>>>>> new rc1 from here.
>>>> I have merged HDFS-3157 revert.
>>>> Do you mind taking a look at HADOOP-8285 and HADOOP-8366?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Uma
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: Arun C Murthy [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:24 PM
>>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release hadoop-2.0.0-alpha
>>>>
>>>> Todd,
>>>>
>>>> Please go ahead and merge changes into branch-2.0.0-alpha and I'll roll RC1.
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Arun
>>>>
>>>> On May 12, 2012, at 10:05 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Looking at the release tag vs the current state of branch-2, I have
>>>>> two concerns from the point of view of HDFS:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) We reverted HDFS-3157 in branch-2 because it sends deletions for
>>>>> corrupt replicas without properly going through the "corrupt block"
>>>>> path. We saw this cause data loss in TestPipelinesFailover. So, I'm
>>>>> nervous about putting it in a release, even labeled as alpha.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) HADOOP-8285 and HADOOP-8366 changed the wire format for the RPC
>>>>> envelope in branch-2, but didn't make it into this rc. So, that would
>>>>> mean that future alphas would not be protocol-compatible with this
>>>>> alpha. Per a discussion a few weeks ago, I think we all were in
>>>>> agreement that, if possible, we'd like all 2.x to be compatible for
>>>>> client-server communication, at least (even if we don't support
>>>>> cross-version for the intra-cluster protocols)
>>>>>
>>>>> Do other folks think it's worth rolling an rc1? I would propose either:
>>>>> a) Revert HDFS-3157 and commit HADOOP-8285 and HADOOP-8366 on
>>>>> branch-2.0.0-alpha, so these are the only changes since rc0. Roll a
>>>>> new rc1 from here.
>>>>> or:
>>>>> b) Discard the current branch-2.0.0-alpha and re-branch from the
>>>>> current state of branch-2.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Todd
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> +1  I installed the build on a 6 node cluster and kicked the tires,
>>>>>> didn't find any blocking issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Btw in the future better to build from the svn repo so the revision is
>>>>>> an svn rev from the release branch. Eg 1336254 instead of 40e90d3c7
>>>>>> which is from the git mirror, this way we're consistent across
>>>>>> releases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hadoop-2.0.0-alpha $ ./bin/hadoop version
>>>>>> Hadoop 2.0.0-alpha
>>>>>> Subversion git://devadm900.cc1.ygridcore.net/grid/0/dev/acm/hadoop-trunk/hadoop-common-project/hadoop-common
>>>>>> -r 40e90d3c7e5d71aedcdc2d9cc55d078e78944c55

Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera
+
Eli Collins 2012-05-15, 18:58
+
Eli Collins 2012-05-15, 19:04
+
Robert Evans 2012-05-09, 18:20
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-05-16, 02:20
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-05-16, 05:30
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-05-16, 06:06
+
Steve Loughran 2012-05-17, 00:52
+
Eli Collins 2012-05-16, 23:11
+
Ahmed Radwan 2012-05-21, 23:59
+
Suresh Srinivas 2012-05-22, 13:49
+
Robert Evans 2012-05-16, 07:04
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-05-16, 22:35
+
sanjay Radia 2012-05-22, 07:14
+
Uma Maheswara Rao G 2012-05-21, 08:34
+
Matt Foley 2012-05-21, 19:23
+
Devaraj Das 2012-05-21, 23:14
+
Siddharth Seth 2012-05-22, 05:45
+
Mahadev Konar 2012-05-21, 20:17
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-05-23, 17:22
+
Matt Foley 2012-05-23, 17:31
+
Thomas Graves 2012-05-17, 15:16
+
Jitendra Pandey 2012-05-18, 02:00
+
Devaraj k 2012-05-21, 06:13
+
Roman Shaposhnik 2012-05-17, 23:01
+
Tsz Wo \ 2012-05-22, 21:13