Mailing-List: contact common-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.6.1 RC0
To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <vinodkv@apache.org>
References: 
 <CAMyYaR+wtZuStZjFcB8LJMPQKBS3REpOW03WvZzsHBo9=q2VBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADbBEnuZXpZ4UneHLXUDoP3onZK40b1JCPTgdCToG7+4EGqYyg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org>,
 "hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org>,
 "mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org>
From: Akira AJISAKA <ajisakaa@oss.nttdata.co.jp>
Message-ID: <55F2A18B.4000703@oss.nttdata.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:40:27 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADbBEnuZXpZ4UneHLXUDoP3onZK40b1JCPTgdCToG7+4EGqYyg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I could reproduce the issue, and I found YARN-3171 will fix it.

Hi Vinod, would you include YARN-3171?
I applied the patch to branch-2.6.1 locally and confirmed the issue was 
fixed.

Regards,
Akira

On 9/11/15 09:16, Sangjin Lee wrote:
> I verified the signatures for both source and the binary tarballs. I
> started up a pseudo-distributed cluster, and tested simple apps such as
> sleep and terasort.
>
> I do see one issue with the RM UI where the sorting by id is broken. The
> table is not rendered in the expected id-descending order, and when I click
> the sort control, nothing happens. Sorting by other columns works fine.
>
> Is anyone else able to reproduce the issue? I checked 2.6.0, and it works
> fine on 2.6.0.
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <vinodkv@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> After a nearly month long [1] toil, with loads of help from Sangjin Lee
>> and Akira Ajisaka, and 153 commits later, I've created a release candidate
>> RC0 for hadoop-2.6.1.
>>
>> The RC is available at:
>> http://people.apache.org/~vinodkv/hadoop-2.6.1-RC0/
>>
>> The RC tag in git is: release-2.6.1-RC0
>>
>> The maven artifacts are available via repository.apache.org at
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1020
>>
>> Some notes from our release process
>>   -  - Sangjin and I moved out a bunch of items pending from 2.6.1 [2] -
>> non-committed but desired patches. 2.6.1 is already big as is and is late
>> by any standard, we can definitely include them in the next release.
>>   - The 2.6.1 wiki page [3] captures some (but not all) of the context of
>> the patches that we pushed in.
>>   - Given the number of fixes pushed [4] in, we had to make a bunch of
>> changes to our original plan - we added a few improvements that helped us
>> backport patches easier (or in many cases made backports possible), and we
>> dropped a few that didn't make sense (HDFS-7831, HDFS-7926, HDFS-7676,
>> HDFS-7611, HDFS-7843, HDFS-8850).
>>   - I ran all the unit tests which (surprisingly?) passed. (Except for one,
>> which pointed out a missing fix HDFS-7552).
>>
>> As discussed before [5]
>>   - This release is the first point release after 2.6.0
>>   - I’d like to use this as a starting release for 2.6.2 in a few weeks
>> and then follow up with more of these.
>>
>> Please try the release and vote; the vote will run for the usual 5 days.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vinod
>>
>> [1] Hadoop 2.6.1 Release process thread:
>> http://markmail.org/thread/wkbgkxkhntx5tlux
>> [2] 2.6.1 Pending tickets:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12331711
>> [3] 2.6.1 Wiki page:
>> https://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Release-2.6.1-Working-Notes
>> [4] List of 2.6.1 patches pushed:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%202.6.1%20and%20labels%20%3D%20%222.6.1-candidate%22
>> [5] Planning Hadoop 2.6.1 release:
>> http://markmail.org/thread/sbykjn5xgnksh6wg
>>
>> PS:
>>   - Note that branch-2.6 which will be the base for 2.6.2 doesn't have
>> these fixes yet. Once 2.6.1 goes through, I plan to rebase branch-2.6 based
>> off 2.6.1.
>>   - Patches that got into 2.6.1 all the way from 2.8 are NOT in 2.7.2 yet,
>> this will be done as a followup.
>>
>>
>