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

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop >> mail # general >> Re: [VOTE] Release candidate 0.20.203.0-rc0


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] Release candidate 0.20.203.0-rc0
I would like to make one minor but important clarification:

From:

> It would be regrettable if
> nontechnical factors ultimately prevents Apache from
> incorporating the value of these contributions into an
> official release.

To:

It would be regrettable if nontechnical factors ultimately prevents Apache from  incorporating the value of these contributions into an official release OF 0.20. There are some not yet ready to take the leap to 0.22; who do not consider it proven.  

So in this regard I do not wish to minimize concerns about distracting from the success of 0.22 or later releases.

> From: Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release candidate 0.20.203.0-rc0
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Monday, May 2, 2011, 3:05 PM

> Most points in this thread are valid,
> having to do with the process of how the contribution was
> assembled; and specific technical aspects of it, e.g. JIRAs
> missing from branch 0.20.203 relative to branch 0.20.
> However,
>
> > > From: Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Assuming the technical inconsistencies are sorted
> > > out, are you willing to withdraw you objection?
> >
> > These are not just technical concerns.  How I vote on
> > any future release candidate will in part depend on how
> > the community is involved in its production.
>
> What strikes me, as an observer to this discussion, is that
> here "community" does not seem equated with Yahoo by
> implication. Perhaps I misread. Nevertheless, Yahoo retains
> a good percentage of active Core developers with standing as
> both committers and high scale users, and these people
> produced the contribution that is branch 0.20.203, and
> therefore by definition "the community" was entirely
> involved in its production.
>
> Yahoo should be commended for advancing the state of branch
> 0.20 with an obvious commitment to donating the results to
> Apache. As a community we are lucky to have a strong
> contributor. Their security enhancements allow us and many
> others the option of strong authentication and user
> isolation for multitenant deployments.
>
> A commercial vendor's product already incorporates Yahoo's
> donated security enhancements. It would be regrettable if
> nontechnical factors ultimately prevents Apache from
> incorporating the value of these contributions into an
> official release.
>
> Some technical concerns seem reasonable. Regarding that:
>
> > From: Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > How hard would it be to get the patches Tom lists
> below into
> > branch-0.20-security-203?  I'd think it'd be an
> easier
> > sell if it were a superset of all in 0.20, especially
> since it
> > bears its name.
>
> This suggestion makes a lot of sense. In addition, filing
> JIRAs for and posting the diffs of the remaining differences
> could help the process as well, and would be good faith
> actions of an active contributor.
>
> Best regards,
>
>     - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting
> back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
>
>