On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Raymie Stata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I took a look at items in 2.3 and 2.4, as well as CDH5 and HDP2 (also
> looked at a few of the patches to assess their risk levels), and came
> up with the following strawman propose of bug-patches to be included
> in a 2.2.1 release:
> HADOOP-10029 [major] - Specifying har file to MR job fails in secure
> HDFS-5089 [major] - When a LayoutVersion supports SNAPSHOT, it must
> support FSIMAGE_NAME_OPTIMIZATION
> HDFS-5403 [major] - WebHdfs client cannot communicate with older
> WebHdfs servers post HDFS-5306
> HDFS-5433 [critical] - When reloading fsimage during checkpointing, we
> should clear existing snapshottable directories
> MAPREDUCE-5028 [critical] - Maps fail when io.sort.mb is set to high value
Has only been fixed in branch-1. Still to be fixed in branch-2; IMO, it is
critical, but not enough to include it in 2.2.1
> YARN-1295 [major] - In UnixLocalWrapperScriptBuilder, using bash -c
> can cause Text file busy errors
> YARN-1374 [blocker] - Resource Manager fails to start due to
I don't think this is a bug in 2.2. It was introduced by changes in
branch-2, not in 2.2
> YARN-1176 [critical] - RM web services ClusterMetricsInfo total nodes
> doesn't include unhealthy nodes
> There are lots of outstanding bug fixes, so this list is definitely a
> bit arbitrary, but it seemed like a good list to me. Any thoughts?
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Sandy Ryza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Re-reading the thread, it seems what I said about 2.2.1 never happening
> > incorrect. My impression is still that nobody has plans to drive a 2.2.1
> > release on any particular timeline.
> > The changes that are now in 2.3 have been moved out of the branch-2.2.1.
> > suppose the idea is that changes slated for 2.2.1 should be committed
> > to branch-2.2 and branch-2.2.1.
> > -Sandy
> > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Raymie Stata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Yes, that thread is part of what's confusing me. Arun's initial 11/8
> >> message suggests that there would be room for blocker fixes leading to
> >> a 2.2.1 patch release ("...and then be very careful about including
> >> only *blocker* fixes in branch-2.2"). And nothing else in that thread
> >> suggests that there wouldn't be a patch release. And yet, Sandy seems
> >> to think that "2.2.1 isn't happening at all" (YARN-1295), a view
> >> that's consistent with the currently confused state of the repo
> >> (branch-2.2.1 exists but not released, branch-2.2 version is
> >> 2.2.2-SNAPSHOT).
> >> Seems to me that we should be planning for a 2.2.1 patch release at
> >> some point...
> >> Raymie
> >> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > the last discussion on this was in november -I presume that's still
> >> plan
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 3 January 2014 04:10, Raymie Stata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Nudge, any thoughts?
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Raymie Stata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > In discussing YARN-1295 it's become clear that I'm confused about
> >> >> > outcome of the "Next releases" thread. I had assumed there would
> >> >> > patch releases to 2.2, and indeed one would be coming out early Q1.
> >> >> > Is this correct?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If so, then things seem a little messed-up right now in 2.2-land.
> >> >> > There already is a branch-2.2.1, but there hasn't been a release.
> >> >> > branch-2.2 has Maven version 2.2.2-SNAPSHOT. Due to the "2.3
> >> >> > a few weeks ago, it might be that the first patch release for 2.2
> >> >> > needs to be 2.2.2. But if so, notice these lists of fixes for