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

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop >> mail # general >> Release compatibility was Re: [VOTE] Release candidate

Copy link to this message
Re: Release compatibility was Re: [VOTE] Release candidate
Wow! Great compilation, Milind! Very nice to have the sequence of events handy.


On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 23:55, Milind Bhandarkar
> [I am not on PMC, but seeing that PMC may be busy with other issues, I
> will try to answer your questions.]
> Eric,
> I think the thread
> "http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-general/201101.mbox/%3C18C
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E" will answer your
> questions. Here is the timeline as I see it:
> 1. Arun proposes to create a release from the security patchset. Says Doug
> has proposed this earlier
> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-general/201004.mbox/%3C4BD
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E April 23, 2010) ("This has been proposed
> earlier by Doug and did not get far due to concerns about the effect this
> would have on development on trunk.") (August 24, 2010)
> 2. Lots of +1s, between August 24 to August 30 2010. One particular
> comment is from Tom White: "I think it would be good to have a shared 0.20
> Apache security branch.
> Since security isn't in 0.21, and the 0.22 release is a some way off
> as you mention, this would be useful for folks who want the security
> features sooner (and want to use an Apache release)."
> 3. Arun volunteers to create a release (August 30, 2010)
> 4. Doug reminds Arun. (October 15, 2010)
> 5. Arun apologizes for not creating a branch because he was busy, because
> he had a baby. (January 11, 2011)
> 6. Lots of discussion about what to call it (the release, not the baby,
> although I had a good laugh at Patrick Angeles's email: "You're gonna call
> your kid 20.100?" ;-).
> 7. Arun proposes to call it 0.20.100: "I'm open to suggestions - how about
> something like 20.100 to show that it's a big jump? Anything else?" Jan
> 12, 2011
> 8. Among others, Eli says: "+1 on 0.20.x   (where x is a J > 3)" on Jan
> 12, 2011.
> So, as you can see, even if this release is called 0.20.x, the community
> agreed that these are valuable patches to have, and despite backward
> incompatibility, still have them in minor release.
> - milind
> --
> Milind Bhandarkar
> +1-650-776-3167
> On 5/6/11 11:14 PM, "Eric Sammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On May 6, 2011, at 4:53 AM, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I understand Eli's concerns that putting stuff in there that hasn't gone
>>into trunk yet is danger. However, as the team makes no guarantees of 100%
>>compatibility between releases, I don't think it's critical. It's just
>>something that needs to be addressed -which can be done after this release
>>has shipped.
>>I was under the impression that the community has been extremely strict
>>about compatibility between minor version bumps in the past. I though
>>were specific guarantees and that was one of the reasons certain behaviors
>>have persisted so long.
>>Does this mean API changes can be made in minor releases and it can be
>>backward compatible in future releases? That seems very, very counter to
>>various conversations that have happened in the past. I'm of the mind that
>>we should continue to promise what we've always promised and if that's
>>changing, let's make with the refactoring party!
>>Can some PMC'ers clarify this one for me?