Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hama-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hama-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1DB27E9B7 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 23:08:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 40720 invoked by uid 500); 5 Mar 2013 23:08:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hama-dev-archive@hama.apache.org Received: (qmail 40688 invoked by uid 500); 5 Mar 2013 23:08:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hama.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@hama.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@hama.apache.org Received: (qmail 40677 invoked by uid 99); 5 Mar 2013 23:08:19 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 23:08:18 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO mail-oa0-f50.google.com) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username surajsmenon, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 23:08:18 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id l20so11546724oag.23 for ; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 15:08:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.172.163 with SMTP id bd3mr21421257oec.78.1362524897612; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 15:08:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.25.197 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 15:08:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 18:08:17 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 0.6.1 Release plan From: Suraj Menon To: dev@hama.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54a365a8522ae04d7358c81 --bcaec54a365a8522ae04d7358c81 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Edward, we are on crossroads on lot of features. Sorted Queues have made the complete refactor of messaging code a necessity. Hence I am working on getting 2 pieces of puzzle together. Thus there are two ways of looking into it. Maybe this is the best time to test the code and release before we the next set of major changes. However, unless we have a set of users who are really looking for an immediate release, we would be wasting time on slicing a release. Also, have we got feedback from MRQL on how the current partitioning strategy affects it? On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Edward J. Yoon wrote: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HAMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%220.6.1%22%20AND%20status%20%3D%20Open%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC > > Do we still have an blocker issues? Otherwise, I'll test TRUNK and cut > 0.6.1 release candidates. > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Edward J. Yoon > wrote: > > All, > > > > Once HAMA-704 and {HAMA-733 or HAMA-734} issues are done, I would like > > to release as a Hama 0.6.1. > > > > Since my projects/environments are all changed to HDFS 2.0 based, so I > > really difficult to evaluate current Hama. > > > > -- > > Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon > > @eddieyoon > > > > -- > Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon > @eddieyoon > --bcaec54a365a8522ae04d7358c81--