hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alejandro Abdelnur <t...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Heads Up - hadoop-2.0.3 release
Date Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:35:35 GMT
I'd like to get in 2.0.3 the JIRAs that enable pluggable shuffle and
pluggable sort: MAPREDUCE-4049, MAPREDUCE-4809, MAPREDUCE-4807 &
MAPREDUCE-4808

Unless I hear otherwise, I'd be merging those commits in branch-2 tomorrow
mid afternoon PST.

Thx


On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Arun C Murthy <acm@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> Seems reasonable since it's a small patch and has had one round of review.
>
> I spoke to Todd yesterday and he seemed to think it can be pushed in
> fairly soon too. So that's two of you.
>
> Anyway, since I'm still awaiting HADOOP-9215 too, I'd appreciate if we can
> get HDFS-4404 committed asap.
>
> thanks,
> Arun
>
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:30 AM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
>
> > Arun,
> >
> > HDFS-4404 is not marked as a blocker. It is a serious bug and I would
> like
> > to make it a blocker. Let me know if you are okay.
> >
> > If folks do not want to hold the release for that fix, lets at least try
> to
> > capture that in release notes and try get that fix into 2.0.4.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Suresh
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Arun C Murthy <acm@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Happy new year folks!
> >>
> >> I'm glad to see that we are down to the last couple of blockers I hope
> we
> >> can resolve in the next 24-hrs or so.
> >>
> >> Once done, I'll create a branch-2.0.3-alpha to unblock branch-2 for
> >> commits targeted towards the next release, create the new fix-versions
> in
> >> jira and spin the RC.
> >> Committers - after the branch is created, please use only the new
> >> fix-version (2.0.4) and check with me before you commit to
> >> branch-2.0.3-alpha. Thanks.
> >>
> >> As always, I'd appreciate help to resolve any unexpected surprises and
> >> also to help verify the RC.
> >>
> >> Hopefully we can start the new year with a great release, there are lots
> >> of goodies in 2.0.3-alpha.
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >> Arun
> >>
> >> On Dec 18, 2012, at 9:00 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> >>
> >>> As Sid responded I think we can move off alpha once we fix
> >> YARN-142/MAPREDUCE-4067. There are other apis we should clean up, but
> none
> >> as egregious as those two.
> >>>
> >>> Someone on my team is starting on it as we speak and I believe we can
> >> get it done sometime in Jan... thus targetting 2.0.4 (as a beta?). By
> then
> >> we'll also have wider rollouts of YARN and would have fixed some more
> >> issues we've seen at very high scale deployments at Y!. Sounds like the
> >> right time to do a beta release to me.
> >>>
> >>> Arun
> >>>
> >>> On Dec 19, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Aaron T. Myers wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hey Arun,
> >>>>
> >>>> Awesome to see we're almost down to zero blockers. What are your
> >> thoughts
> >>>> on removing the "alpha" label from the upcoming release? It seems to
> me
> >>>> from the earlier discussion that most folks feel that we're at the
> point
> >>>> where the interfaces are sufficiently stable to warrant it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Aaron
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Arun C Murthy <acm@hortonworks.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Nearly there:
> >>>>> http://s.apache.org/hadoop-2-blockers
> >>>>>
> >>>>> YARN-217 should be easy, I'd also like to get in YARN-253.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Arun
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Dec 19, 2012, at 1:15 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Any news on how this is progressing? Some folks in this thread
below
> >>>>>> inquired about getting this release out around the New Year
> timeframe,
> >>>>>> but it looks like YARN-117 subtasks have gone pretty quiet.
We all
> >>>>>> know how long lifecycle changes can take to get pushed through
;-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Todd
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Steve Loughran
> >>>>>> <steve.loughran@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> I want to make some changes to the lifecycle of a yarn service
(in
> a
> >>>>>>> backwards compatible way).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-117
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1. formal state machine model with stop state idempotent
and
> >>>>> entry-able
> >>>>>>> from any state
> >>>>>>> 2. waiting/blocked state a service can enter when waiting
for
> >>>>> something
> >>>>>>> else
> >>>>>>> 3. an alternate base class that does the state model checks
before
> >>>>>>> executing any state change functions -currently its done
at
> >>>>>>> end-of-operation in the super() calls.
> >>>>>>> 4. gradual move of services to the stricter base class.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> With a new base class nothing will break (as the move can
be done
> >>>>>>> case-by-case, leaving the heavily subclassed ones alone);
the state
> >>>>> model
> >>>>>>> extensions & formalisation would be visible but not
used.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't want to hold anything up, because I need more testing
of
> >> things
> >>>>>>> before this is ready for review. I just want to get the
fixes in
> >> before
> >>>>> it
> >>>>>>> ships
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 19 November 2012 16:22, Robert Evans <evans@yahoo-inc.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I am OK with removing the alpha assuming that we think
that the
> APIs
> >>>>> are
> >>>>>>>> stable enough that we are willing to truly start maintaining
> >> backwards
> >>>>>>>> compatibility on them within 2.X. From what I have seen
I think
> that
> >>>>> they
> >>>>>>>> are fairly stable and I think there is enough adoption
by other
> >>>>> projects
> >>>>>>>> right now that breaking backwards compatibility would
be
> >> problematic.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --Bobby Evans
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 11/16/12 11:34 PM, "Stack" <stack@duboce.net>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Aaron T. Myers
<
> atm@cloudera.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Arun,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Given that the 2.0.3 release is intended to
reflect the growing
> >>>>>>>>>> stability
> >>>>>>>>>> of YARN, and the QJM work will be included in
2.0.3 which
> >> provides a
> >>>>>>>>>> complete HDFS HA solution, I think it's time
we consider
> removing
> >> the
> >>>>>>>>>> "-alpha" label from the release version. My
preference would be
> to
> >>>>>>>>>> remove
> >>>>>>>>>> the label entirely, but we could also perhaps
call it "-beta" or
> >>>>>>>>>> something.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I think it fine after two minor releases undoing
the '-alpha'
> >> suffix.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If folks insist we next go to '-beta', I'd hope
we'd travel all
> >>>>>>>>> remaining 22 letters of the greek alphabet before
we 2.0.x.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> St.Ack
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Todd Lipcon
> >>>>>> Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Arun C. Murthy
> >>>>> Hortonworks Inc.
> >>>>> http://hortonworks.com/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Arun C. Murthy
> >>> Hortonworks Inc.
> >>> http://hortonworks.com/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Arun C. Murthy
> >> Hortonworks Inc.
> >> http://hortonworks.com/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://hortonworks.com/download/
>
> --
> Arun C. Murthy
> Hortonworks Inc.
> http://hortonworks.com/
>
>
>


-- 
Alejandro

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message