[https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gif]
I am planning to do cut a release candidate of 0.23.3 in the next week or so.  I am waiting for a few more JIRAs to go in (MAPREDUCE-3943 and HDFS-3177), and a bit more testing before I call a vote.  I know not too many people have been putting things into branch-0.23 directly, but if you do want to please check with me first. After I cut the release I will open the branch up again for more bug fixes for a 23.4 release.  I expect 0.23.4 to come about a month after 0.23.3. This is to incorporate any bug fixes needed as Yahoo! and hopefully others do more testing on 0.23.3 and start rolling it out to more clusters.
[https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gif]

--Bobby Evans

Having releases like this kind of versions (back to 2x.x..) may confuse
people?
Hadoop-2 and 23.x may not have big difference right.

already community decided to make the branches as 1, 2....etc.. So again
going back to 2x.x releases may really confuse people. I confused by seeing
this release mail here.

Why can't people put real effort on hadoop-2 itself and make it stable as
that is the version community wanted to make it stable from alpha? Why this
effort split here.

-thx

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> [https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gif]
>
>
> I am planning to do cut a release candidate of 0.23.3 in the next week or
> so.  I am waiting for a few more JIRAs to go in (MAPREDUCE-3943 and
> HDFS-3177), and a bit more testing before I call a vote.  I know not too
> many people have been putting things into branch-0.23 directly, but if you
> do want to please check with me first. After I cut the release I will open
> the branch up again for more bug fixes for a 23.4 release.  I expect 0.23.4
> to come about a month after 0.23.3. This is to incorporate any bug fixes
> needed as Yahoo! and hopefully others do more testing on 0.23.3 and start
> rolling it out to more clusters.
> [https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gif]
>
> --Bobby Evans
>

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Inder.dev Java <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having releases like this kind of versions (back to 2x.x..) may confuse
> people?

Not at all.  A point release off an existing / previous release branch
is what we call a sustaining release. You can read more about that
here: http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Roadmap

Thanks,
Eli

There was a discussion about this in April

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-general/201204.mbox/%3CCB9F
2CBB.37CD3%[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E

in which there was unanimous approval of the idea.  I realize that it is
confusing and I feel your pain.  I hate having to explain to our customers
why we are going "backwards" from 1.0 to 0.23.

The community as a whole is working hard and is serious about stabilizing
hadoop-2.  As I said in the original proposal everything that is in 0.23.3
has been merged first to branch-2.

What is more, putting on my Yahoo hat, we have nightly builds and tests of
branch-2.  We want to move to branch-2 as soon as possible, but to meet
our goals to have YARN out in production by the end of this year we had to
cut somewhere.  We also wanted to do this out in the open so the community
could see what was happening, instead of in some private git repository.

If the community has changed their mind and having an official release
labeled 0.23 is too confusing to customers I am happy to not call a vote,
but simply renumber the release and move on.

--Bobby Evans

On 8/23/12 4:09 PM, "Inder.dev Java" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Having releases like this kind of versions (back to 2x.x..) may confuse
>people?
>Hadoop-2 and 23.x may not have big difference right.
>
>already community decided to make the branches as 1, 2....etc.. So again
>going back to 2x.x releases may really confuse people. I confused by
>seeing
>this release mail here.
>
>Why can't people put real effort on hadoop-2 itself and make it stable as
>that is the version community wanted to make it stable from alpha? Why
>this
>effort split here.
>
>-thx
>
>On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I am planning to do cut a release candidate of 0.23.3 in the next week
>>or
>> so.  I am waiting for a few more JIRAs to go in (MAPREDUCE-3943 and
>> HDFS-3177), and a bit more testing before I call a vote.  I know not too
>> many people have been putting things into branch-0.23 directly, but if
>>you
>> do want to please check with me first. After I cut the release I will
>>open
>> the branch up again for more bug fixes for a 23.4 release.  I expect
>>0.23.4
>> to come about a month after 0.23.3. This is to incorporate any bug fixes
>> needed as Yahoo! and hopefully others do more testing on 0.23.3 and
>>start
>> rolling it out to more clusters.
>>
>> --Bobby Evans
>>

> We also wanted to do this out in the open so the community
could see what was happening, instead of in some private git repository.

You mean, you have some different changes in 23.3,  which is not put into
hadoop-2 ?

Note that, end of the day, ultimately community has to mark hadoop-2 as
stable. but not 23.3..versions right.

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 23.3
and say it is stable with out merging some things from hadoop-2, that will
not really give confidence on hadoop-2 releases right. If you are porting
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.

-thx
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> There was a discussion about this in April
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-general/201204.mbox/%3CCB9F
> 2CBB.37CD3%[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E
>
> in which there was unanimous approval of the idea.  I realize that it is
> confusing and I feel your pain.  I hate having to explain to our customers
> why we are going "backwards" from 1.0 to 0.23.
>
> The community as a whole is working hard and is serious about stabilizing
> hadoop-2.  As I said in the original proposal everything that is in 0.23.3
> has been merged first to branch-2.
>
> What is more, putting on my Yahoo hat, we have nightly builds and tests of
> branch-2.  We want to move to branch-2 as soon as possible, but to meet
> our goals to have YARN out in production by the end of this year we had to
> cut somewhere.  We also wanted to do this out in the open so the community
> could see what was happening, instead of in some private git repository.
>
> If the community has changed their mind and having an official release
> labeled 0.23 is too confusing to customers I am happy to not call a vote,
> but simply renumber the release and move on.
>
> --Bobby Evans
>
> On 8/23/12 4:09 PM, "Inder.dev Java" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Having releases like this kind of versions (back to 2x.x..) may confuse
> >people?
> >Hadoop-2 and 23.x may not have big difference right.
> >
> >already community decided to make the branches as 1, 2....etc.. So again
> >going back to 2x.x releases may really confuse people. I confused by
> >seeing
> >this release mail here.
> >
> >Why can't people put real effort on hadoop-2 itself and make it stable as
> >that is the version community wanted to make it stable from alpha? Why
> >this
> >effort split here.
> >
> >-thx
> >
> >On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I am planning to do cut a release candidate of 0.23.3 in the next week
> >>or
> >> so.  I am waiting for a few more JIRAs to go in (MAPREDUCE-3943 and
> >> HDFS-3177), and a bit more testing before I call a vote.  I know not too
> >> many people have been putting things into branch-0.23 directly, but if
> >>you
> >> do want to please check with me first. After I cut the release I will
> >>open
> >> the branch up again for more bug fixes for a 23.4 release.  I expect
> >>0.23.4
> >> to come about a month after 0.23.3. This is to incorporate any bug fixes
> >> needed as Yahoo! and hopefully others do more testing on 0.23.3 and
> >>start
> >> rolling it out to more clusters.
> >>
> >> --Bobby Evans
> >>
>
>

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
branch-0.23.

> Note that, end of the day, ultimately community has to mark hadoop-2 as
>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 as
stable is not something that is voted on according to the bylaws.  We all
want hadoop-2 to become stable, but it is up to individual users if it is
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 are
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 to
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 repository.
>
>You mean, you have some different changes in 23.3,  which is not put into
>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 23.3
>and say it is stable with out merging some things from hadoop-2, that will
>not really give confidence on hadoop-2 releases right. If you are porting
>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.
>
>-thx
>
>
>On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> There was a discussion about this in April
>>
>>
>>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-general/201204.mbox/%3CCB
>>9F
>> 2CBB.37CD3%[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E
>>
>> in which there was unanimous approval of the idea.  I realize that it is
>> confusing and I feel your pain.  I hate having to explain to our
>>customers
>> why we are going "backwards" from 1.0 to 0.23.
>>
>> The community as a whole is working hard and is serious about
>>stabilizing
>> hadoop-2.  As I said in the original proposal everything that is in
>>0.23.3
>> has been merged first to branch-2.
>>
>> What is more, putting on my Yahoo hat, we have nightly builds and tests
>>of
>> branch-2.  We want to move to branch-2 as soon as possible, but to meet
>> our goals to have YARN out in production by the end of this year we had
>>to
>> cut somewhere.  We also wanted to do this out in the open so the
>>community
>> could see what was happening, instead of in some private git repository.
>>
>> If the community has changed their mind and having an official release
>> labeled 0.23 is too confusing to customers I am happy to not call a
>>vote,
>> but simply renumber the release and move on.
>>
>> --Bobby Evans
>>
>> On 8/23/12 4:09 PM, "Inder.dev Java" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Having releases like this kind of versions (back to 2x.x..) may confuse
>> >people?
>> >Hadoop-2 and 23.x may not have big difference right.
>> >
>> >already community decided to make the branches as 1, 2....etc.. So
>>again
>> >going back to 2x.x releases may really confuse people. I confused by
>> >seeing
>> >this release mail here.
>> >
>> >Why can't people put real effort on hadoop-2 itself and make it stable
>>as
>> >that is the version community wanted to make it stable from alpha? Why

>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
>branch-0.23.

  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 don't
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 they
are close with community and will have tests to run on it to make sure no
impacts.

-thx
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 we
> can do all of this in public.  What we run and build is purely what is on
> branch-0.23.
>
> > Note that, end of the day, ultimately community has to mark hadoop-2 as
> >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 as
> stable is not something that is voted on according to the bylaws.  We all
> want hadoop-2 to become stable, but it is up to individual users if it is
> 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 are
> 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 to
> 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 repository.
> >
> >You mean, you have some different changes in 23.3,  which is not put into
> >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 23.3
> >and say it is stable with out merging some things from hadoop-2, that will
> >not really give confidence on hadoop-2 releases right. If you are porting
> >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.
> >
> >-thx
> >
> >
> >On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> There was a discussion about this in April
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-general/201204.mbox/%3CCB
> >>9F
> >> 2CBB.37CD3%[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E
> >>
> >> in which there was unanimous approval of the idea.  I realize that it is
> >> confusing and I feel your pain.  I hate having to explain to our
> >>customers
> >> why we are going "backwards" from 1.0 to 0.23.
> >>
> >> The community as a whole is working hard and is serious about
> >>stabilizing
> >> hadoop-2.  As I said in the original proposal everything that is in
> >>0.23.3
> >> has been merged first to branch-2.
> >>
> >> What is more, putting on my Yahoo hat, we have nightly builds and tests
> >>of
> >> branch-2.  We want to move to branch-2 as soon as possible, but to meet

----- Original Message -----

> From: Inder.dev Java <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 8:16 AM
> Subject: Re: 0.23.3 release coming soon
>
>> 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
>> branch-0.23.
>
>   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.

What did you do with 0.17?

I don't see an reason for someone to be concerned about skipping 0.22 and 0.21 release. We moved beyond it. Couple of lines in the release twiki should suffice. I run clusters for reasonably varied users, this hasn't been an issue.

When the decision was made to use HA branch as for 2.0 instead of base 0.23 branch, there was expectation that we would move to stabilize 0.23 by Feb 2012 and move to 2.0 in April. But unfortunately it took longer than expected. There is lot of
effort went in to getting 0.23 in to a state where we can start deploying to production.

> I know many people maintain the source code by cutting some branch. I don't
> 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 they
> are close with community and will have tests to run on it to make sure no
> impacts.

We don't what to go to the same state as with 0.20.1xx. There are quite an number of folks who what to use a release of what Yahoo! runs in production. In the last 5 years, with the exception of some 0.20 release, we published via apache.

Its up to the PMC to decide whether to publish or not to.
> -thx
>
>
> 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
> we
>>  can do all of this in public.  What we run and build is purely what is on
>>  branch-0.23.
>>
>>  > Note that, end of the day, ultimately community has to mark hadoop-2
> as
>>  >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 as
>>  stable is not something that is voted on according to the bylaws.  We all
>>  want hadoop-2 to become stable, but it is up to individual users if it is
>>  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 are
>>  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 to
>>  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
> repository.
>>  >
>>  >You mean, you have some different changes in 23.3,  which is not put
> into
>>  >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
> 23.3

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 08:46PM, Inder.dev Java 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
> >branch-0.23.
>
>   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.

Actually, 0.22 has been released last year. Also, a BigTop stack for that
release is available that features HBase, Pig, etc.

Cos

> I know many people maintain the source code by cutting some branch. I don't
> 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 they
> are close with community and will have tests to run on it to make sure no
> impacts.
>
> -thx
>
>
> 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 we
> > can do all of this in public.  What we run and build is purely what is on
> > branch-0.23.
> >
> > > Note that, end of the day, ultimately community has to mark hadoop-2 as
> > >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 as
> > stable is not something that is voted on according to the bylaws.  We all
> > want hadoop-2 to become stable, but it is up to individual users if it is
> > 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 are
> > 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 to
> > 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 repository.
> > >
> > >You mean, you have some different changes in 23.3,  which is not put into
> > >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 23.3
> > >and say it is stable with out merging some things from hadoop-2, that will
> > >not really give confidence on hadoop-2 releases right. If you are porting
> > >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.
> > >
> > >-thx
> > >
> > >
> > >On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> There was a discussion about this in April
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-general/201204.mbox/%3CCB
> > >>9F
> > >> 2CBB.37CD3%[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E
> > >>
> > >> in which there was unanimous approval of the idea.  I realize that it is
> > >> confusing and I feel your pain.  I hate having to explain to our
> > >>customers
> > >> why we are going "backwards" from 1.0 to 0.23.
> >

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.

--Bobby  

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
>>branch-0.23.
>
>  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
>don't
>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
>they
>are close with community and will have tests to run on it to make sure no
>impacts.
>
>-thx
>
>
>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
>>we
>> can do all of this in public.  What we run and build is purely what is
>>on
>> branch-0.23.
>>
>> > Note that, end of the day, ultimately community has to mark hadoop-2
>>as
>> >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
>>as
>> stable is not something that is voted on according to the bylaws.  We
>>all
>> want hadoop-2 to become stable, but it is up to individual users if it
>>is
>> 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
>>are
>> 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
>>to
>> 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
>>repository.
>> >
>> >You mean, you have some different changes in 23.3,  which is not put
>>into
>> >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
>>23.3
>> >and say it is stable with out merging some things from hadoop-2, that
>>will
>> >not really give confidence on hadoop-2 releases right. If you are
>>porting
>> >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.
>> >
>> >-thx
>> >
>> >
>> >On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> There was a discussion about this in April
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-general/201204.mbox/%3CCB
>> >>9F
>> >> 2CBB.37CD3%[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E

Hi Inder,

>From what I've seen of the development activity that came out of
choosing to stabilize the early 0.23 branch, I think there is great
value in what's being done here.

Given that, I personally have nothing against them making a release;
it helps them continue on their goal, and its pretty great that they
want others to share the stable/tested release of YARN, etc., instead
of keeping things private.

We were in a version mess and have already taken steps to fix that,
and this isn't making anything worse the way I see it. Feel free to
continue recommending 2.x and 1.x numbers as thats the numbering
scheme for the future, as the fixes done on this branch do make it to
those as well (or at least trunk, from where it can be cherry-picked),
its not a divergence/fork in any way.

P.s. We've already had 0.23 releases before, and I don't think we're
'diverging' from the version naming if we release a bug fixes drop
under the same line.

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
>
> --Bobby
>
> 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
>>>branch-0.23.
>>
>>  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
>>don't
>>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
>>they
>>are close with community and will have tests to run on it to make sure no
>>impacts.
>>
>>-thx
>>
>>
>>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
>>>we
>>> can do all of this in public.  What we run and build is purely what is
>>>on
>>> branch-0.23.
>>>
>>> > Note that, end of the day, ultimately community has to mark hadoop-2
>>>as
>>> >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
>>>as
>>> stable is not something that is voted on according to the bylaws.  We
>>>all
>>> want hadoop-2 to become stable, but it is up to individual users if it
>>>is
>>> 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
>>>are
>>> 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
>>>to
>>> 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:

Harsh J