+1 (binding). I think it's important to maintain the release continuity, otherwise we could end up with the 0.20.2 / 0.20.200 problem all over again (parallel "stable" dev tracks without a parent-child relationship to each other, ie with disjoint subsets of functionality). I consider achieving a stable basis for API backward compat very important. And Arun is committing to hit beta in the very near future.
--Matt On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Bikas Saha <bi...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > I am +1 to the proposal because it maintains the original cadence a bunch > of us committers/contributors have been working with. > > Windows related changes have been made in a conservative manner so as not > to destabilize the code base. The changes are being extensively tested and > validated by community members, especially those from Microsoft. > > YARN-397 jiras are mainly enhancements that can be added in a backwards > compatible manner. Would be great if some of them make it but I would not > hold the release for them. > > Let us all make the effort to get the release out with all the long > awaited and useful features as planned. > Bikas > > -----Original Message----- > From: Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli [mailto:vino...@hortonworks.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 12:20 PM > To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta > > > I also feel that some of YARN-397 should go in. If you also feel so, > please put in a +1 to state your intention. > > Thanks, > +Vinod > > On May 15, 2013, at 11:32 AM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote: > > > Do we need to add YARN-397? > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Karthik Kambatla > <ka...@cloudera.com>wrote: > > > >> Hi Arun, > >> > >> Can we add HADOOP-9517 to the list - having compatibility guidelines > >> should help us support users and downstream projects better? > >> > >> Thanks > >> Karthik > >> > >> > >> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Arun C Murthy <a...@hortonworks.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Folks, > >>> > >>> 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. > >>> > >>> thanks, > >>> Arun > >>> > >>> PS: To keep this discussion grounded in technical details I've moved > >>> this to dev@ (bcc general@). > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Alejandro >
