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

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop, mail # general - [RESULT] Release plan for Hadoop 2.0.5


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [RESULT] Release plan for Hadoop 2.0.5
Matt Foley 2013-05-15, 08:20
Having just finished the 1.2.0 release, I have now taken the time to
carefully read this entire thread. (For a more enjoyable experience, I'm
practicing walking on hot coals next week :-)

I think something got lost in the argumentation:

First of all, what I understand is that
1. Arun is being asked to take his progression of 2.0.x-alpha releases to a
new 2.1.x (perhaps 2.1.x-beta?) line
2. Konst is being allowed to repurpose the 2.0.x line, starting with 2.0.5,
into a stabilization line for the subset of Hadoop-2 features already in
2.0.4-alpha.

[I say "allowed" because, while any committer can make a new branch and
propose releases from it, Konst has proposed to take over an existing
sequence of branches, for which a dedicated and long-term Release Manager
has previously proposed a well-understood sequence of releases; see
http://s.apache.org/BmM ]

Here's the thing that got lost, and I think we better clarify:

Additional features that everybody wants in Hadoop-2 still remain to be
added.  We KNOW these will result in non-backward-compatible API changes.
 So by trying to do a stability line of code now, we are terminating the
effort to achieve backward-compatibility in Hadoop-2 APIs.

Did this community really intend to vote for that?  Because that's what
we've now got.

--Matt
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Konstantin Shvachko
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Hello Arun,
>
> Please accept my apologies for what could have been considered as a rude
> response.
> Didn't mean any sort of incivility.
> Please attribute my emotional response to the onus of explaining over and
> over again that
> - I am not opposed to the features
> - not forcing a release profile on you
> - but rather propose a more conservative release sequence with a focus on
> stability.
> in the last two weeks.
>
> If the version rename we agreed upon earlier is still valid, please
> proceed.
> I am blocked on the rename of artifacts.
>
> I presume we can move this to dev.
>
> Thanks,
> --Konst
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Konstantin Shvachko
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> > Sounds like you are having fun, Arun.
> > 2.0.5 is explicitly in the subject line for this vote.
> > No worries I'll fix that.
> >
> > You should stop assuming - it's in nobody interests - and start reading.
> > --Konst
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On May 14, 2013, at 11:04 AM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I can point you towards a set of fixes I think important for YARN
> >> > (nodemanager, security etc.).
> >> >
> >> > That would be very much appreciated.
> >> >
> >> >> I'll do the 2.1 series by renaming the planned 2.0.5 to 2.1.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Thanks. I've copied branch-2.0.4-alpha as a new branch-2.0-alpha branch.
> >>
> >> This way you can start with a clean slate. Good luck.
> >>
> >> As I noted before in the thread, the APIs in branch-2.0-alpha will
> remain
> >> incompatible with branch-2.
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >> Arun
> >
> >
> >
>