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

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop, mail # general - 0.23.3 release coming soon


Copy link to this message
-
Re: 0.23.3 release coming soon
Konstantin Boudnik 2012-08-24, 18:11
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 08:46PM, Inder.dev Java wrote:
> >We don't have a private git repo.  That was the whole point of this so we
> >can do all of this in public.  What we run and build is purely what is on
> >branch-0.23.
>
>   True, you can do this by simply sharing the build somewhere and publish
> the link in list.
>   whoever wants they may try.
>
>   Let's please don't deviate the release numberings by keeping this
> releases somewhere in apache release folder along with Hadoop-2 and 1.
>
> Already we may have to answer to the people why we skipped 22 version.

Actually, 0.22 has been released last year. Also, a BigTop stack for that
release is available that features HBase, Pig, etc.

Cos

> I know many people maintain the source code by cutting some branch. I don't
> think people will ask to make release of their branches to make sure no
> private changes ;-) . They migrate to near latest version to make sure they
> are close with community and will have tests to run on it to make sure no
> impacts.
>
> -thx
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We don't have a private git repo.  That was the whole point of this so we
> > can do all of this in public.  What we run and build is purely what is on
> > branch-0.23.
> >
> > > Note that, end of the day, ultimately community has to mark hadoop-2 as
> > >stable. but not 23.3..versions right.
> >
> > The community can do what ever they want following the Hadoop Project's
> > bylaws http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html.  An official release of
> > hadoop requires a lazy majority vote of PMC members.  Marking a release as
> > stable is not something that is voted on according to the bylaws.  We all
> > want hadoop-2 to become stable, but it is up to individual users if it is
> > stable enough for them.  The fact that hadoop-2.0.0 and hadoop-2.1.0 are
> > marked as alpha is only to warn people that the release has not really
> > been tested at scale.  There was a lot of discussion when the alpha was
> > added to the name if that really was necessary.  The community decided
> > that it was helpful so that is why we did it.
> >
> > 0.23.3 is very close to 2.0.0-aplha but without Name Node HA, and with
> > more bug fixes.  You are correct that even if all of the bugs in 0.23 are
> > fixed it does not guarantee that all of the bugs in 2 will be fixed
> > because of that.  But it does guarantee that someone else will not have to
> > fix a bug in 2 that is also in 0.23.
> >
> > --Bobby Evans
> >
> > On 8/23/12 4:52 PM, "Inder.dev Java" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >> We also wanted to do this out in the open so the community
> > >could see what was happening, instead of in some private git repository.
> > >
> > >You mean, you have some different changes in 23.3,  which is not put into
> > >hadoop-2 ?
> > >
> > >
> > >alpha cuts already going on and ppl are testing. If you find any bug in
> > >23.3, you may contribute to hadoop-2.
> > >That changes will be tested in next alpha cut right. If you test with 23.3
> > >and say it is stable with out merging some things from hadoop-2, that will
> > >not really give confidence on hadoop-2 releases right. If you are porting
> > >everything from hadoop-2 to 23.3, then both releases are same. Need not
> > >release it separately right? But I am not sure about it.
> > >
> > >IMO, having official releases like this may confuse ppl differently.
> > >
> > >-thx
> > >
> > >
> > >On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> There was a discussion about this in April
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-general/201204.mbox/%3CCB
> > >>9F
> > >> 2CBB.37CD3%[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E
> > >>
> > >> in which there was unanimous approval of the idea.  I realize that it is
> > >> confusing and I feel your pain.  I hate having to explain to our
> > >>customers
> > >> why we are going "backwards" from 1.0 to 0.23.
> >