Since we recognize now that this is a vote to overrule previous decision,
I am referring to Vinod's note on general
should this be brought to the attention of the Board?
I don't remember any precedents of this kind in Hadoop history.
But other projects may have had such experience.
A clarification on categorizing this action and on voting practices
from ASF may help.
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
> I am glad I at least convinced you to finally announce your release plan
> and put it into vote.
> Even though it is to overrule the vote that just completed, which you were
> against and lost, well - Twice.
> I am glad you removed the NFS feature from the list proposed earlier.
> I think this vote is late. The lazy consensus on that issue has been just
> I don't see the basis for the new vote,
> and it is not clear what action you seek to approve.
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>> A considerable number of people have expressed confusion regarding the
>> recent vote on 2.0.5, beta status etc. given lack of specifics, the voting
>> itself (validity of the vote itself, whose votes are binding) etc.
>> IMHO technical arguments (incompatibility b/w 2.0 & 2.1, current
>> stability of 3 features under debate etc.) have been lost in the discussion
>> in favor of non-technical (almost dramatic) nuances such as "seizing the
>> moment". There is now dangerous talk of tolerating incompatibility b/w 2.0
>> and 2.1) - this is a red flag for me; particularly when there are just 3
>> features being debated and active committers and contributors are confident
>> of and ready to stand by their work. All patches, I believe, are ready to
>> be merged in the the next few days per discussions on jira. This will,
>> clearly, not delay the other API work which everyone agrees is crucial. As
>> a result, I feel no recourse but to restart a new vote - all attempts at
>> calm, reasoned, civil discussion based on technical arguments have come to
>> naught - I apologize for the thrash caused to everyone's attention.
>> To get past all of this confusion, I'd like to present an alternate,
>> specific proposal for consideration.
>> I propose we continue the original plan and make a 2.0.5-beta release by
>> May end with the following content:
>> # HDFS-347
>> # HDFS Snapshots
>> # Windows support
>> # Necessary & final API/protocol changes such as:
>> * Final YARN API changes: YARN-386
>> * MR Binary Compatibility: MAPREDUCE-5108
>> * Final RPC cleanup: HADOOP-8990
>> People working on the above features have all expressed considerable
>> comfort with them and are ready to stand-by to help expedite any necessary
>> bug-fixes etc. to get to stabilization quickly. I'm confident we can get
>> this release out by end of May. This sets stage for a hadoop-2.x GA release
>> right after with some more testing - this means I think I can quickly turn
>> around and make bug-fix releases as necessary right after 2.0.5-beta.
>> I request that people consider helping out with this plan and sign up to
>> help push hadoop-2.x to stability as outlined above. I believe this will
>> help achieve our shared goals of quickly stabilizing hadoop-2 and help
>> ensure we can support it for forseeable future in a compatible manner for
>> the benefit of our users and downstream projects.
>> Please vote, the vote will run the normal 7 days. Obviously, I'm +1.
>> PS: To keep this discussion grounded in technical details I've moved this
>> to dev@ (bcc general@).