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

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop >> mail # dev >> Re: Heads up - 2.0.5-beta

Copy link to this message
Re: Heads up - 2.0.5-beta
If there are no objections, I'll start a vote on this proposal now.

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Konstantin Shvachko

> Hi Arun,
> I am agnostic about version numbers too, as long as the count goes up.
> The discussion you are referring to is somewhat outdated, it was talking
> about 2.0.4-beta, which we already passed. It is talking about producing a
> series "not suitable for general consumption", which isn't correct for the
> latest release 2.0.4. That discussion clearly outlined general (or
> specific) frustration about breaking compatibility from top level projects.
> You are not listing new features for MR and YARN.
> So it will only be about the four HDFS features Suresh proposed for 2.0.5.
> As I said earlier my problem with them is that each is big enough to
> destabilize the code base, and big enough to be targeted for a separate
> release. The latter relates to the "streamlining" thread on general@.
> I also think the proposed features will delay stable 2.x beyond the
> time-frame you projected, because some of them are not implemented yet, and
> Windows is in unknown to me condition, as integration builds are still not
> run for it.
> If the next release has to be 2.0.5 I would like to make an alternative
> proposal, which would include
> - stabilization of current 2.0.4
> - making all API changes to allow freezing them post 2.0.5
> And nothing else.
> We can add new features in subsequent release (release). Potentially we
> can end up in the same place as you proposed but with more certainty along
> the road.
> The main reason I am asking for stabilization is to make it available for
> large installations such as Yahoo sooner. And this will require commitment
> to compatibility as Bobby mentioned on several occasions.
> As a rule of thumb compatibility for me means that I can do a rolling
> upgrade on the cluster. More formal definitions like Karthik's
> Compatibility page are better. BigTop's integration testing proved to be
> very productive.
> Thanks,
> --Konstantin
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>> Konstantin,
>> On Apr 26, 2013, at 4:34 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
>> > Do you think we can call the version you proposed to release
>> > 2.1.0 or 2.1.0-beta?
>> >
>> > The proposed new features imho do not exactly conform with the idea
>> > of dot-dot release, but definitely qualify for a major number change.
>> > I am just trying to avoid rather ugly versions, which of course
>> > also possible.
>> I'm agnostic to the schemes.
>> During the long discussion we had just 2 months ago, I proposed that
>> 2.1.x be the beta series initially.
>> The feedback and consensus was that it wasn't the right numbering scheme:
>> http://s.apache.org/1j4
>> thanks,
>> Arun