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

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop >> mail # general >> Naming of Hadoop releases


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Naming of Hadoop releases
> This is a long standing issue with branch-0.22 - are either of you planning on fixing this?

I personally do not have plans to fix security in .22. I don't think
we should target it. I hope 0.23 will be a replacement for it by
summer. Is it still in your roadmap, Arun?
I also don't think that this should be a requirement for renaming the
release, at least I haven't seen anything about it in the Apache
Hadoop policies.

> could you please share some roadmap/timelines?

I did discuss my roadmap with my managers. Sorry don't have anything to share.

Thanks,
--Konstantin

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Konstantin and Milind,
>
>  As I've noted on the other thread (my bad):
>
>> 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.
>
> This is a long standing issue with branch-0.22 - are either of you planning on fixing this? If so, could you please share some roadmap/timelines?
>
> thanks,
> Arun
>
> On Mar 19, 2012, at 12:34 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Konstantin. In previous discussion, I had suggested
>> simultaneous renumbering, but for some reason it was not considered.
>>
>> (For history buffs: I upgraded from Windows 1.0 to Windows 3.1 straight.
>> Windows 2.0 did not have many features that made it compelling to upgrade.
>> It did not seem odd to skip a number then, and I don't see why it would
>> now. I also skipped Windows Vista and upgraded from XP to Windows 7, even
>> if Vista was touted as a major release.)
>>
>> - Milind
>>
>> ---
>> Milind Bhandarkar
>> Chief Architect, Greenplum Labs, Data Computing Division, EMC
>> +1-650-523-3858 (W)
>> +1-408-666-8483 (M)
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/19/12 12:04 PM, "Konstantin Shvachko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hadoop naming is definitely confusing. And having Hadoop-1 did not
>>> make it less confusing for users.
>>>
>>>> Current 0.22 -> Gets renamed to 1.5 (if it ever gets tested and
>>>> released)
>>>
>>> It was released on November 29, 2011.
>>> eBay is actively using it as of today.
>>>
>>> If the goal of renaming branches is to make things less confusing
>>> about Hadoop, then I agree with people saying we should do a
>>> simultaneous rename of the branches. That is
>>> Current 0.22 -> 2
>>> Current 0.23 -> 3
>>>
>>> It almost sounds like release .22 does not deserve a whole number,
>>> only a fraction. But having .22 renamed to 1.5 creates a confusion
>>> that it belongs to Hadoop-1 line, which is not exactly the message we
>>> want to send out.
>>> Also I don't know what the number of commits reflects, and whether it
>>> is good or not to have many for a particular release.
>>>
>>> If the community decides to rename .22 to 2 I will be glad to work on it.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> --Konstantin
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Todd Papaioannou
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 18, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 9.22 can't be considered as 1.5 because it is the major release from
>>>>> 1.0 (old
>>>>> 0.20.x). Besides, by declaring it as 1.5 we'll be planting future
>>>>> confusion of
>>>>> the same sort that happened around 0.20* line.
>>>>>
>>>>> And last but not least, the same  discussion has happened in the past
>>>>> around
>>>>> 1.0 release time like http://is.gd/x1fVqu
>>>>
>>>> Yes I remember it well, but AFAIC there was no clear decision on 0.22
>>>> or 0.23. There were competing proposals and opinions and basically what
>>>> happened was that we punted the decision on anything other than
>>>> 0.20->1.0 until a later date. But, that later date is now approaching
>>>> and we continue to call the current release in question 0.23. Hence my
>>>> original email.
>>>>
>>