hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eli Collins <...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release candidate
Date Tue, 03 May 2011 17:02:06 GMT
I think we still need to incorporate the patches currently checked
into branch 0.20.  For example, Owen identified a major bug
(BooleanWritable's comparator is broken) and filed a jira
(HADOOP-6928) to put it in branch-0.20, where I reviewed it and
checked it in, so this bug would be fixed in the next stable release.
However this change is not in branch-0.20-security-203. Unless we put
the delta from branch-0.20 into this release, it is missing important
bug fixes that will cause it to regress against 20.3 (if it ever is

I am also nervous about changes like the one identified by
HADOOP-7255. It looks like this change caused a significant regression
in TestDFSIO throughput. It changes the core Task class, the commit
log is a single line, and as far as I can tell it was not discussed or
reviewed by anyone in the community. Don't changes like this at least
deserve a jira before we release them?


On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:39 AM, Konstantin Shvachko
<shv.hadoop@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think its a good idea to release hadoop-0.20.203. It moves Apache Hadoop a
> step forward.
> Looks like the technical difficulties are resolved now with latest Arun's
> commits.
> Being a superset of hadoop-0.20.2 it can be considered based on one of the
> official Apache releases.
> I don't think there was a lack of discussions on the lists about the issues
> included in the release candidate. Todd did a thorough review of the entire
> security branch. Many developers participated in discussions.
> Agreeing with Stack I wish HBase was considered a primary target for Hadoop
> support. But it is not realistic to have it in hadoop-0.20.203.
> I have some experience running a version of this release candidate on a
> large cluster. It works. I would add a couple of patches, which make it run
> on Windows for me like HADOOP-7110, HADOOP-7126. But those are not blockers.
> Thanks,
> --Konstantin
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Ian Holsman <hadoop@holsman.net> wrote:
>> On May 3, 2011, at 9:58 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Owen, Suresh and I have committed everything on this list except
>> >> HADOOP-6386 and HADOOP-6428. Not sure which of the two are relevant/
>> >> necessary, I'll check with Cos.  Other than that hadoop-0.20.203 now a
>> >> superset of hadoop-0.20.2.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Missed adding HADOOP-5759 to that list, I'll check with Amareshwari
>> before committing.
>> >
>> > Arun
>> Thanks for doing this so fast Arun.

View raw message