I respect your opinion, but I personally feel that there is a lot of value
in having a release that has been stabilized, is being maintained, and
tested on a large scale. Even if there is confusion about the version
numbers. But I will leave the final decision up to the PMC. If they feel
the version numbering confusion is worth the value they can vote for an
official release. If they do not they can vote against it.
On 8/24/12 10:16 AM, "Inder.dev Java" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>We don't have a private git repo. That was the whole point of this so we
>>can do all of this in public. What we run and build is purely what is on
> True, you can do this by simply sharing the build somewhere and publish
>the link in list.
> whoever wants they may try.
> Let's please don't deviate the release numberings by keeping this
>releases somewhere in apache release folder along with Hadoop-2 and 1.
>Already we may have to answer to the people why we skipped 22 version.
>I know many people maintain the source code by cutting some branch. I
>think people will ask to make release of their branches to make sure no
>private changes ;-) . They migrate to near latest version to make sure
>are close with community and will have tests to run on it to make sure no
>On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We don't have a private git repo. That was the whole point of this so
>> can do all of this in public. What we run and build is purely what is
>> > Note that, end of the day, ultimately community has to mark hadoop-2
>> >stable. but not 23.3..versions right.
>> The community can do what ever they want following the Hadoop Project's
>> bylaws http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html. An official release of
>> hadoop requires a lazy majority vote of PMC members. Marking a release
>> stable is not something that is voted on according to the bylaws. We
>> want hadoop-2 to become stable, but it is up to individual users if it
>> stable enough for them. The fact that hadoop-2.0.0 and hadoop-2.1.0 are
>> marked as alpha is only to warn people that the release has not really
>> been tested at scale. There was a lot of discussion when the alpha was
>> added to the name if that really was necessary. The community decided
>> that it was helpful so that is why we did it.
>> 0.23.3 is very close to 2.0.0-aplha but without Name Node HA, and with
>> more bug fixes. You are correct that even if all of the bugs in 0.23
>> fixed it does not guarantee that all of the bugs in 2 will be fixed
>> because of that. But it does guarantee that someone else will not have
>> fix a bug in 2 that is also in 0.23.
>> --Bobby Evans
>> On 8/23/12 4:52 PM, "Inder.dev Java" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> We also wanted to do this out in the open so the community
>> >could see what was happening, instead of in some private git
>> >You mean, you have some different changes in 23.3, which is not put
>> >hadoop-2 ?
>> >alpha cuts already going on and ppl are testing. If you find any bug in
>> >23.3, you may contribute to hadoop-2.
>> >That changes will be tested in next alpha cut right. If you test with
>> >and say it is stable with out merging some things from hadoop-2, that
>> >not really give confidence on hadoop-2 releases right. If you are
>> >everything from hadoop-2 to 23.3, then both releases are same. Need not
>> >release it separately right? But I am not sure about it.
>> >IMO, having official releases like this may confuse ppl differently.
>> >On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> There was a discussion about this in April
>> >> 2CBB.37CD3%[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E