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

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop >> mail # general >> [RESULT] Release plan for Hadoop 2.0.5


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [RESULT] Release plan for Hadoop 2.0.5
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:47PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
> Yes, Vinod. Thanks for understanding.
>
> The plan is not to add any new features in 2.0.5. Only API changes to allow
> potential feature backports in subsequent releases.
> I will rename branch-2.0-alpha Arun created to branch-2.0.5 (right after
> this), make changes on it, then release. Similar to branch-0.23 model.
>
> Renaming of current 2.0.5-beta to 2.1 is great.
> Do I understand correctly that renaming current 2.0.5-beta to 2.1 is a
> change in CHANGES.txt and renaming Jira versions, since 2.0.5-beta branch
> has not been carved?
>
> Guys, please raise your voice to volunteer for the RM role? I will take on
> it if nobody wants it.
> I guess it will take a day or two to sort things out after the vote.

I can do RM'ing for this release. I would highly appreciate any help from
anyone who's interested in the stabilization of 2.0.x line of Hadoop.

Thanks,
  Cos

> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Have no idea what you meant there.
> >
> > Even though several others noted that it isn't clear what is being voted
> > on, trying to make sense out of it, it seems that
> >  - you don't want any new features at all in 2.0.5.
> >  - The originally planned 2.0.5 *has* already got new features which go
> > against this vote result.
> >
> > So I think, Arun proposed that we rename the originally planned 2.0.5 to
> > 2.1 and you said yes. Arun then he went ahead and copied 2.0.4-alpha to
> > 2.0-alpha where it can be 'stabilized'.
> >
> > And then this.
> >
> > Please make it clear. Unfortunately there are those who have the onus of
> > reviewing/committing some 'features' to branch-2. Please let us know what
> > is okay.
> >
> > Will start committing to branch-2 unless I hear otherwise.
> >
> > The other concern is about merging patches into this 'stability-branch'.
> > Clearly the vote doesn't tell who the RM is and it isn't clear who is doing
> > it. Till that happens, I'll skip merging patches to branch-2.0-alpha branch
> > - whether the patch is a feature or a bug needs to be negotiated with the
> > RM *when in doubt*.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > +Vinod
> >
> > On May 14, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
> >
> > > Sounds like you are having fun, Arun.
> > > 2.0.5 is explicitly in the subject line for this vote.
> > > No worries I'll fix that.
> > >
> > > You should stop assuming - it's in nobody interests - and start reading.
> > > --Konst
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> On May 14, 2013, at 11:04 AM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>> I can point you towards a set of fixes I think important for YARN
> > >>> (nodemanager, security etc.).
> > >>>
> > >>> That would be very much appreciated.
> > >>>
> > >>>> I'll do the 2.1 series by renaming the planned 2.0.5 to 2.1.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks. I've copied branch-2.0.4-alpha as a new branch-2.0-alpha branch.
> > >>
> > >> This way you can start with a clean slate. Good luck.
> > >>
> > >> As I noted before in the thread, the APIs in branch-2.0-alpha will
> > remain
> > >> incompatible with branch-2.
> > >>
> > >> thanks,
> > >> Arun
> >
> >