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

Switch to Plain View
Hadoop, mail # general - [RESULT] Release plan for Hadoop 2.0.5


+
Konstantin Shvachko 2013-05-14, 17:07
+
Arun C Murthy 2013-05-14, 17:40
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2013-05-14, 18:04
+
Arun C Murthy 2013-05-14, 18:10
+
Chris Douglas 2013-05-14, 18:22
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2013-05-14, 18:52
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2013-05-15, 07:45
+
Arun C Murthy 2013-05-15, 09:17
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [RESULT] Release plan for Hadoop 2.0.5
Chris Nauroth 2013-05-15, 16:31
I have a question about dev process in light of this vote.  As a
contributor, how do I set the Target Version/s field correctly in jiras to
inform reviewers and committers of the proper destination for my code?
 Before this vote, my rough guideline was "if Windows-specific, then 3.0.0,
else 2.0.X and 3.0.0".  After this vote, it seems there are some additional
nuances, such that incompatible changes need to target 2.1.X + 3.0.0, and
perhaps simple bug fixes like adding a null check need to target 2.0.X +
2.1.X + 3.0.0.

As others have stated, there may even be ambiguity or disagreement about
the definition of "simple bug fixes".  The specifics are difficult to
anticipate, so committers may need to come to agreement on some general
guidelines, and then debate further as needed on individual patches.

If this is generally confusing for the community (not just my own
confusion), then I'll volunteer to add notes in the HowToContribute wiki
once we have the answers.

Chris Nauroth
Hortonworks
http://hortonworks.com/

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> On May 15, 2013, at 12:45 AM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
>
> > Hello Arun,
> >
> > Please accept my apologies for what could have been considered as a rude
> > response.
> > Didn't mean any sort of incivility.
>
> Accepted. Thanks.
>
> > Please attribute my emotional response to the onus of explaining over and
> > over again that
> > - I am not opposed to the features
> > - not forcing a release profile on you
> > - but rather propose a more conservative release sequence with a focus on
> > stability.
> > in the last two weeks.
> >
> > If the version rename we agreed upon earlier is still valid, please
> proceed.
> > I am blocked on the rename of artifacts.
> >
> > I presume we can move this to dev.
>
> Frankly, I'm still confused how/why this has evolved or where it's
> reached. But yes, let's move it to dev.
>
> Arun
>
>
+
Matt Foley 2013-05-15, 08:20
+
Roman Shaposhnik 2013-05-15, 16:50
+
Suresh Srinivas 2013-05-15, 17:39
+
sanjay Radia 2013-05-15, 04:16
+
Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli 2013-05-15, 01:45
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2013-05-15, 05:47
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-05-17, 01:23
+
Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli 2013-05-17, 04:10
+
Steve Loughran 2013-05-15, 00:50
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2013-05-15, 05:09
+
Aaron T. Myers 2013-05-14, 21:39
+
Roman Shaposhnik 2013-05-14, 18:08
+
Arun C Murthy 2013-05-14, 18:12
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-05-14, 17:26
+
Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli 2013-05-14, 20:15
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2013-05-15, 04:42
+
Steve Loughran 2013-05-15, 06:09
+
Steve Loughran 2013-05-15, 06:10
+
Arpit Gupta 2013-05-14, 20:53
+
Bikas Saha 2013-05-14, 20:59