>> Arun, not sure whether your "Yes to all" already covered this, but I'd like >> to throw in support for the compatibility guidelines being a blocker.
+1 to that. Definitely an overriding concern for me. On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Sandy Ryza <sandy.r...@cloudera.com> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Agreed with Bikas that we should get the scheduler API enhancements > (YARN-397) in we are able, but they don't need to be blockers because they > will be backwards compatible. > > Arun, not sure whether your "Yes to all" already covered this, but I'd like > to throw in support for the compatibility guidelines being a blocker. > > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:20 PM, eric baldeschwieler < > eri...@hortonworks.com > > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On 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@). > > > > > > > >
