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

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop >> mail # general >> [VOTE] Release hadoop-0.23.2-rc0


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] Release hadoop-0.23.2-rc0
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Yep, makes sense - I'll roll an rc0 for 2.0 after.
> >
> > However, we should consider whether HDFS protocols are 'ready' for us to
> commit to them for the foreseeable future, my sense is that it's a tad
> early - particularly with auto-failover not complete.
> >
> > Thus, we have a couple of options:
> > a) Call the first release here as *2.0.0-alpha* version (lots of ASF
> projects do this).
> > b) Just go with 2.0.0 and deem 2.0.x or 2.1.x as the first stable
> release and fwd-compatible release later.
> >
> > Given this is a major release (unlike something obscure like
> hadoop-0.23.0) I'm inclined to go with a) i.e. hadoop-2.0.0-alpha.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
> Agree that we're a little too early on the HDFS protocol side, think
> MR2 is probably in a similar boat wrt stability as well.
>
> +1 to option a, calling it hadoop-2.0.0-alpha seems most appropriate.
>

Regarding protocols:
+1 to _not_ locking down "cluster-internal" wire compatibility at this
point. i.e we can break DN<->NN, or NN<->SBN, or Admin command -> NN
compatibility still.
+1 to locking down client wire compatibility with the release of 2.0. After
2.0 is released I would like to see all 2.0.x clients continue to be
compatible. Now that we are protobuf-ified, I think this is doable.
Should we open a separate discussion thread for the above?

Regarding version numbering: either of the proposals seems fine by me.

-Todd

 > Arun
> >
> > On Apr 19, 2012, at 12:24 AM, Eli Collins wrote:
> >
> >> Hey Arun,
> >>
> >> This vote passed a week or so ago, let's make it official?
> >>
> >> Also, are you still planning to roll a hadoop-2.0.0-rc0 of branch-2
> >> this week?  I think we should do that soon, if you're not planning to
> >> do this holler and I'd be happy to.  There's only 1 blocker left
> >> (http://bit.ly/I55LAd) and it's patch available, I think we should
> >> role an rc from branch-2 when it's merged.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Eli
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>> 0.23.2 is just  a small set of bug-fixes on top of 0.23.1 and doesn't
> have NN HA etc.
> >>>
> >>> As I've noted separately, I plan to put out a hadoop-2.0.0-rc0 in a
> couple weeks with NN HA, PB for HDFS etc.
> >>>
> >>> thanks,
> >>> Arun
> >>>
> >>> On Mar 29, 2012, at 3:55 PM, Ted Yu wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> What are the issues fixed / features added in 0.23.2 compared to
> 0.23.1 ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I've created a release candidate for hadoop-0.23.2 that I would like
> to
> >>>>> release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is available at:
> http://people.apache.org/~acmurthy/hadoop-0.23.2-rc0/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The maven artifacts are available via repository.apache.org.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please try the release and vote; the vote will run for the usual 7
> days.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> thanks,
> >>>>> Arun
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Arun C. Murthy
> >>>>> Hortonworks Inc.
> >>>>> http://hortonworks.com/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Arun C. Murthy
> >>> Hortonworks Inc.
> >>> http://hortonworks.com/
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > --
> > Arun C. Murthy
> > Hortonworks Inc.
> > http://hortonworks.com/
> >
> >
>

--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera