We actually require to have a vote according to the bylaws (Thanks Aaron Myers for the kindly note.)  Please check the branch and vote.

Tsz-Wo Nicholas Sze

Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/
________________________________
From: Mahadev Konar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Merging 0.23-PB to 0.23

Sounds great! +1 for merging. Would be good to get this into 0.23
branch as soon as possible.

Mahadev Konar
Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The IPC protocol buffer feature in trunk is complete.  It is time to merge 0.23-PB back to 0.23.  Lists of 0.23-PB issues which are not in 0.23 can be found in the CHANGES.txt files in the 0.23-PB branch.  I will merge it tomorrow.  Please let me know if you have any concern.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tsz-Wo Nicholas Sze
> Hortonworks Inc.
> http://hortonworks.com/

+1

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> We actually require to have a vote according to the bylaws (Thanks Aaron
> Myers for the kindly note.)  Please check the branch and vote.
>
> Tsz-Wo Nicholas Sze
>
> Hortonworks Inc.
> http://hortonworks.com/
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mahadev Konar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze" <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 3:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Merging 0.23-PB to 0.23
>
> Sounds great! +1 for merging. Would be good to get this into 0.23
> branch as soon as possible.
>
> Mahadev Konar
> Hortonworks Inc.
> http://hortonworks.com/
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The IPC protocol buffer feature in trunk is complete.  It is time to
> merge 0.23-PB back to 0.23.  Lists of 0.23-PB issues which are not in 0.23
> can be found in the CHANGES.txt files in the 0.23-PB branch.  I will merge
> it tomorrow.  Please let me know if you have any concern.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Tsz-Wo Nicholas Sze
> > Hortonworks Inc.
> > http://hortonworks.com/
>

--

+1.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> We actually require to have a vote according to the bylaws (Thanks Aaron
> Myers for the kindly note.)  Please check the branch and vote.
>
> Tsz-Wo Nicholas Sze
>
> Hortonworks Inc.
> http://hortonworks.com/
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mahadev Konar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze" <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 3:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Merging 0.23-PB to 0.23
>
> Sounds great! +1 for merging. Would be good to get this into 0.23
> branch as soon as possible.
>
> Mahadev Konar
> Hortonworks Inc.
> http://hortonworks.com/
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The IPC protocol buffer feature in trunk is complete.  It is time to
> merge 0.23-PB back to 0.23.  Lists of 0.23-PB issues which are not in 0.23
> can be found in the CHANGES.txt files in the 0.23-PB branch.  I will merge
> it tomorrow.  Please let me know if you have any concern.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Tsz-Wo Nicholas Sze
> > Hortonworks Inc.
> > http://hortonworks.com/
>

+1, nice to see this go in to branch-0.23.

Given the discussion on the hadoop-0.23.1 voting thread, can I request the fix-version for this to be 23.3? As I've mentioned there I'm thinking a 23.2 as a small bug-fix release in a week or so with some critical fixes/enhancements - this won't affect the PB merge at all.

Makes sense?

thanks,
Arun

On Feb 23, 2012, at 10:33 AM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:

> +1.
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> We actually require to have a vote according to the bylaws (Thanks Aaron
>> Myers for the kindly note.)  Please check the branch and vote.
>>
>> Tsz-Wo Nicholas Sze
>>
>> Hortonworks Inc.
>> http://hortonworks.com/
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Mahadev Konar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze" <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 3:30 PM
>> Subject: Re: Merging 0.23-PB to 0.23
>>
>> Sounds great! +1 for merging. Would be good to get this into 0.23
>> branch as soon as possible.
>>
>> Mahadev Konar
>> Hortonworks Inc.
>> http://hortonworks.com/
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The IPC protocol buffer feature in trunk is complete.  It is time to
>> merge 0.23-PB back to 0.23.  Lists of 0.23-PB issues which are not in 0.23
>> can be found in the CHANGES.txt files in the 0.23-PB branch.  I will merge
>> it tomorrow.  Please let me know if you have any concern.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Tsz-Wo Nicholas Sze
>>> Hortonworks Inc.
>>> http://hortonworks.com/
>>

--
Arun C. Murthy
Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1, nice to see this go in to branch-0.23.
>
> Given the discussion on the hadoop-0.23.1 voting thread, can I request the fix-version for this to be 23.3? As I've mentioned there I'm thinking a 23.2 as a small bug-fix release in a week or so with some critical fixes/enhancements - this won't affect the PB merge at all.
>

Arun,  are you still planning to do a quick 23.2 release? Given that
it's been a month and PB and HA are in checked in we should cut a new
23.2 branch?

Thanks,
Eli

Isn't it about time that we started calling 0.23 "Hadoop 2.0" instead? While the numbering system may make sense to everyone here, to the rest of the world it's going to be hella confusing for 0.23 to come out after Hadoop 1.0 was released. Since 0.23 has MR2 in it I think that it would make sense to call it 2.0. Also, I think would really help with the brand awareness/perception of the project in the wider customer audience.

I know there are some other potential releases out there too, so my overall suggestion would be:

Current 1.X -> Remains 1.x (as new bug fix releases are released)
Current 0.22 -> Gets renamed to 1.5 (if it ever gets tested and released)
Current 0.23 -> Gets renamed to 2.0

Remember, a large part of the reason for renaming 0.20.xx to 1.0 was to make project progress more understandable to the rest of the world. We should ensure we don't regress with the next major release.

Thoughts?

ToddP
On Mar 17, 2012, at 2:51 PM, Eli Collins wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> +1, nice to see this go in to branch-0.23.
>>
>> Given the discussion on the hadoop-0.23.1 voting thread, can I request the fix-version for this to be 23.3? As I've mentioned there I'm thinking a 23.2 as a small bug-fix release in a week or so with some critical fixes/enhancements - this won't affect the PB merge at all.
>>
>
> Arun,  are you still planning to do a quick 23.2 release? Given that
> it's been a month and PB and HA are in checked in we should cut a new
> 23.2 branch?
>
> Thanks,
> Eli

Hi ToddP,

Would you mind starting a new thread on general@ to discuss release
renumbering? It seems to me that that issue is orthogonal to what's being
discussed in this thread.

Thanks a lot,
Aaron

--
Aaron T. Myers
Software Engineer, Cloudera

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Todd Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Isn't it about time that we started calling 0.23 "Hadoop 2.0" instead?
> While the numbering system may make sense to everyone here, to the rest of
> the world it's going to be hella confusing for 0.23 to come out after
> Hadoop 1.0 was released. Since 0.23 has MR2 in it I think that it would
> make sense to call it 2.0. Also, I think would really help with the brand
> awareness/perception of the project in the wider customer audience.
>
> I know there are some other potential releases out there too, so my
> overall suggestion would be:
>
> Current 1.X -> Remains 1.x (as new bug fix releases are released)
> Current 0.22 -> Gets renamed to 1.5 (if it ever gets tested and released)
> Current 0.23 -> Gets renamed to 2.0
>
> Remember, a large part of the reason for renaming 0.20.xx to 1.0 was to
> make project progress more understandable to the rest of the world. We
> should ensure we don't regress with the next major release.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> ToddP
>
>
> On Mar 17, 2012, at 2:51 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> +1, nice to see this go in to branch-0.23.
> >>
> >> Given the discussion on the hadoop-0.23.1 voting thread, can I request
> the fix-version for this to be 23.3? As I've mentioned there I'm thinking a
> 23.2 as a small bug-fix release in a week or so with some critical
> fixes/enhancements - this won't affect the PB merge at all.
> >>
> >
> > Arun,  are you still planning to do a quick 23.2 release? Given that
> > it's been a month and PB and HA are in checked in we should cut a new
> > 23.2 branch?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Eli
>
>

Will do.

Thanks,

Todd

On Mar 17, 2012, at 8:19 PM, "Aaron T. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi ToddP,
>
> Would you mind starting a new thread on general@ to discuss release
> renumbering? It seems to me that that issue is orthogonal to what's being
> discussed in this thread.
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Aaron
>
> --
> Aaron T. Myers
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Todd Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> Isn't it about time that we started calling 0.23 "Hadoop 2.0" instead?
>> While the numbering system may make sense to everyone here, to the rest of
>> the world it's going to be hella confusing for 0.23 to come out after
>> Hadoop 1.0 was released. Since 0.23 has MR2 in it I think that it would
>> make sense to call it 2.0. Also, I think would really help with the brand
>> awareness/perception of the project in the wider customer audience.
>>
>> I know there are some other potential releases out there too, so my
>> overall suggestion would be:
>>
>> Current 1.X -> Remains 1.x (as new bug fix releases are released)
>> Current 0.22 -> Gets renamed to 1.5 (if it ever gets tested and released)
>> Current 0.23 -> Gets renamed to 2.0
>>
>> Remember, a large part of the reason for renaming 0.20.xx to 1.0 was to
>> make project progress more understandable to the rest of the world. We
>> should ensure we don't regress with the next major release.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> ToddP
>>
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2012, at 2:51 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>> +1, nice to see this go in to branch-0.23.
>>>>
>>>> Given the discussion on the hadoop-0.23.1 voting thread, can I request
>> the fix-version for this to be 23.3? As I've mentioned there I'm thinking a
>> 23.2 as a small bug-fix release in a week or so with some critical
>> fixes/enhancements - this won't affect the PB merge at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Arun,  are you still planning to do a quick 23.2 release? Given that
>>> it's been a month and PB and HA are in checked in we should cut a new
>>> 23.2 branch?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Eli
>>
>>

Agree. In fact, I'm happy to rename branch-0.23 to branch-Y (Y > 1),
if we can agree on the other thread, & create the RC.

 I agree with Todd (P) that its time to call it some thing other than
0.23, particularly with HDFS Wire-Compat and HA. Thoughts?

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 17, 2012, at 2:51 PM, Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> +1, nice to see this go in to branch-0.23.
>>
>> Given the discussion on the hadoop-0.23.1 voting thread, can I request the fix-version for this to be 23.3? As I've mentioned there I'm thinking a 23.2 as a small bug-fix release in a week or so with some critical fixes/enhancements - this won't affect the PB merge at all.
>>
>
> Arun,  are you still planning to do a quick 23.2 release? Given that
> it's been a month and PB and HA are in checked in we should cut a new
> 23.2 branch?
>
> Thanks,
> Eli

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Arun Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  Agree. In fact, I'm happy to rename branch-0.23 to branch-Y (Y > 1),
> if we can agree on the other thread, & create the RC.
>
>  I agree with Todd (P) that its time to call it some thing other than
> 0.23, particularly with HDFS Wire-Compat and HA. Thoughts?

It might be useful to put various options up for the community vote.
We don't have too many of them, really:
   branch-2
   branch-3

Personally, I'm for branch-3. Regardless of the potential of .22 I'd
rather keep a slot for it. Worse case -- we don't have Hadoop 2 ever.

Thanks,
Roman.

On Mar 18, 2012, at 7:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Arun Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>  Agree. In fact, I'm happy to rename branch-0.23 to branch-Y (Y > 1),
>> if we can agree on the other thread, & create the RC.
>>
>>  I agree with Todd (P) that its time to call it some thing other than
>> 0.23, particularly with HDFS Wire-Compat and HA. Thoughts?
>
> It might be useful to put various options up for the community vote.
> We don't have too many of them, really:
>   branch-2
>   branch-3
>
> Personally, I'm for branch-3. Regardless of the potential of .22 I'd
> rather keep a slot for it. Worse case -- we don't have Hadoop 2 ever.

That seems reasonable at first glance.

However, the problem is that hadoop-0.22 has removed public and non-deprecated apis/features (i.e. security) which are present in branch-1 (previously branch-0.20.2xx).

This is against the Apache Hadoop release policy on major releases i.e. only features deprecated for at least one release can be removed.

To their credit, the folks driving branch-0.22 (Konstantin et al) have always been clear that they do not plan to support security in branch-0.22 - but, it still is a blocker for renaming hadoop-0.22 to hadoop-2.

Given that
# It's been ~16 months since we branched 0.22
# It's been ~12 months since we released hadoop-0.20.203 which eventually became branch-1
# It's been ~9 months since security was removed from branch-0.22
# The vast majority of the contributors have moved on to trunk/branch-0.23 (#patches & #commits for past several months).
it's unlikely that branch-0.22 will ever be a super-set of branch-1 and support security.

To be clear, this isn't to discourage folks from working on branch-0.22. As always, people are welcome to 'scratch the itch' and Konstantin has done a great job pushing branch-0.22. Folks are welcome to continue to push for future releases off branch-0.22 called hadoop-0.22.xxx.

In summary, unless we can find someone to step up and fix/validate security in branch-0.22 in very short order, say next month or so (given it's long history), I don't think it makes sense to rename branch-0.22 to branch-2.

Roman - Would you like to step up and fix & validate security in branch-0.22?
If so, can you let us know how soon?
If not, I don't think it makes sense to 'leave a hole' for branch-0.22 forever since branch-0.23 is a super-set of branch-1 and branch-0.22 anyway.

Arun

On Mar 18, 2012, at 7:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> Personally, I'm for branch-3. Regardless of the potential of .22 I'd
> rather keep a slot for it. Worse case -- we don't have Hadoop 2 ever.

Well, that would just be silly ;)  The whole point of renaming releases was to present a better face to the rest of the world. I don't think it's going to be that fun having to try to explain why there was a Hadoop 1.0 and a Hadoop 3.0 but Hadoop 2.0 never came out.

ToddP

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Todd Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2012, at 7:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> Personally, I'm for branch-3. Regardless of the potential of .22 I'd
>> rather keep a slot for it. Worse case -- we don't have Hadoop 2 ever.
>
> Well, that would just be silly ;)

Well, then Microsoft, Sun, RedHat, Novell were all just plain silly.
They all had platforms in the market that skipped versions and
that was ok. Where's my Windows 6? Nobody seems to be
obsessing over it much.

> The whole point of renaming releases was to present a better face to the
> rest of the world. I don't think it's going to be that fun having to try to explain
> why there was a Hadoop 1.0 and a Hadoop 3.0 but Hadoop 2.0 never came out.

I don't think the above paragraph makes much sense. But you're entitled to
your opinion. Which means, when time comes to voting you are going
to vote according to it. I'm not sure there's much need for any extra leadership
here.

Thanks,
Roman.

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 08:25PM, Todd Papaioannou wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2012, at 7:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > Personally, I'm for branch-3. Regardless of the potential of .22 I'd
> > rather keep a slot for it. Worse case -- we don't have Hadoop 2 ever.
>
> Well, that would just be silly ;)  The whole point of renaming releases was

Bravo! Well formulated and grown up argument at last!

> to present a better face to the rest of the world. I don't think it's going
> to be that fun having to try to explain why there was a Hadoop 1.0 and a
> Hadoop 3.0 but Hadoop 2.0 never came out.
>
> ToddP
>
>
>

Hi Arun,

Sure, I will set the fix version to be 0.23.3.

Nicholas

----- Original Message -----
From: Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Merging 0.23-PB to 0.23

+1, nice to see this go in to branch-0.23.

Given the discussion on the hadoop-0.23.1 voting thread, can I request the fix-version for this to be 23.3? As I've mentioned there I'm thinking a 23.2 as a small bug-fix release in a week or so with some critical fixes/enhancements - this won't affect the PB merge at all.

Makes sense?

thanks,
Arun

On Feb 23, 2012, at 10:33 AM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:

> +1.
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> We actually require to have a vote according to the bylaws (Thanks Aaron
>> Myers for the kindly note.)  Please check the branch and vote.
>>
>> Tsz-Wo Nicholas Sze
>>
>> Hortonworks Inc.
>> http://hortonworks.com/
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Mahadev Konar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze" <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 3:30 PM
>> Subject: Re: Merging 0.23-PB to 0.23
>>
>> Sounds great! +1 for merging. Would be good to get this into 0.23
>> branch as soon as possible.
>>
>> Mahadev Konar
>> Hortonworks Inc.
>> http://hortonworks.com/
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The IPC protocol buffer feature in trunk is complete.  It is time to
>> merge 0.23-PB back to 0.23.  Lists of 0.23-PB issues which are not in 0.23
>> can be found in the CHANGES.txt files in the 0.23-PB branch.  I will merge
>> it tomorrow.  Please let me know if you have any concern.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Tsz-Wo Nicholas Sze
>>> Hortonworks Inc.
>>> http://hortonworks.com/
>>

--
Arun C. Murthy
Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/