Junping Du 2016-08-12, 15:20
  Kihwal Lee 2016-08-12, 16:56
  Sangjin Lee 2016-08-12, 20:32
  Steve Loughran 2016-08-13, 16:49
  Allen Wittenauer 2016-08-15, 17:56
  Chris Trezzo 2016-08-10, 00:32
  Jason Lowe 2016-08-10, 15:17
  Junping Du 2016-08-10, 16:37
  Chris Trezzo 2016-08-10, 20:30
Hi Chris,

      Thanks for your response!

      I think I could miss the thread discussion of "[DISCUSS] 2.6.x line releases" for something reason. I checked the discussion - Sean claimed that HBase community needs 2.6.5, Zhe said they are using 2.6.x releases and Akira said that are over new 50 commits land on branch-2.6 since 2.6.4. Do I miss any comments there?

      These comments are more like wishes but not giving more clarifications on the needs. I would like to hear more specific reasons to not move to 2.7.x releases but prefer to upgrade to 2.6.5. If the only reason is about expectation management, I think we should claim 2.6.5 is the last branch-2.6 release after this release work, otherwise people would expect us to maintain this branch forever which is impossible and unnecessary. Thoughts?
From: Chris Trezzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 9:30 PM
To: Junping Du
Subject: Re: [Release thread] 2.6.5 release activities

Thanks Jason and Junping for the comments! I will update the spreadsheet for HADOOP-13362 and YARN-4794.

As for continuing 2.6.x releases, please see the discussion in the "[DISCUSS] 2.6.x line releases" thread. Sean, Akira and Zhe all expressed interest in additional 2.6.x releases. I started this thread based off of that interest. I understand there is a burden to maintaining a large number of branches. I am not sure what the community's end-of-life policy is, but maybe we can issue a warning with the 2.6.5 release stating when we will stop maintaining the release line. This at least gives users some time to make migration plans to a newer version.

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Junping Du <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Thanks Chris for bring up this discussion.
Before we going to detail discussion of releasing 2.6.5, I have a quick question here: do we think it is necessary to continue to release branch-2.6, like 2.6.5, etc after 2.7 is out for more than 1 year. Any reason to not suggest users to upgrade to 2.7.3 releases for latest fixes which is in releasing now?
My major concern on more release efforts on legacy branches is the same with my comments on other release plan before - it seems too many releases trains get planned at the same time window (2.6.x, 2.7.x, 2.8, 3.0-alpha, 3.1-beta, etc.). Not only user could get confusing on this, but also I suspect we don't have so many bandwidth in community to push forward so these releases in high quality during the same time window - just like Chris Douglas mentioned in another email thread on committer activity and bandwidth. IMO, may be it is better to focus on limited number of releases and move them faster?

BTW, I agree with Jason that HADOOP-13362 is not needed for branch-2.6 unless we backport container metrics related patches there.

Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Release thread] 2.6.5 release activities

Thanks for organizing this, Chris!
I don't believe HADOOP-13362 is needed since it's related to ContainerMetrics.  ContainerMetrics weren't added until 2.7 by YARN-2984.
YARN-4794 looks applicable to 2.6.  The change drops right in except it has JDK7-isms (multi-catch clause), so it needs a slight change.


      From: Chris Trezzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
 Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 7:32 PM
 Subject: [Release thread] 2.6.5 release activities

Based on the sentiment in the "[DISCUSS] 2.6.x line releases" thread, I
have moved forward with some of the initial effort in creating a 2.6.5
release. I am forking this thread so we have a dedicated 2.6.5 release

I have gone through the git logs and gathered a list of JIRAs that are in
branch-2.7 but are missing from branch-2.6. I limited the diff to issues
with a commit date after 1/26/2016. I did this because 2.6.4 was cut from
branch-2.6 around that date (http://markmail.org/message/xmy7ebs6l3643o5e)
and presumably issues that were committed to branch-2.7 before then were
already looked at as part of 2.6.4.

I have collected these issues in a spreadsheet and have given them an
initial triage on whether they are candidates for a backport to 2.6.5. The
spreadsheet is sorted by the status of the issues with the potential
backport candidates at the top. Here is a link to the spreadsheet:

As of now, I have identified 16 potential backport candidates. Please take
a look at the list and let me know if there are any that you think should
not be on the list, or ones that you think I have missed. This was just an
initial high-level triage, so there could definitely be issues that are

As a side note: we still need to look at the pre-commit build for 2.6 and
follow up with an addendum for HADOOP-12800.

Thanks everyone!
Chris Trezzo
  Allen Wittenauer 2016-08-11, 14:13
  Junping Du 2016-08-11, 15:11
  Allen Wittenauer 2016-08-11, 19:50
  Karthik Kambatla 2016-08-11, 20:03
  Chris Trezzo 2016-08-12, 09:56
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB