I'm actually drafting such a proposal. Will open the discussion as a [PROPOSAL] in general@ --Matt
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Arun C Murthy <a...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > > On May 15, 2013, at 3:27 PM, Chris Douglas wrote: > > > +1 (binding) on the proposal. > > > > However, the value we get from these "release plan" votes is dubious, > > to put it mildly. The surrounding discussion has cost more than it is > > worth, and votes on executive summaries of releases discourage the > > sort of detailed collaboration we're trying to create. It replaces > > development with zero-sum struggles over abstractions. > > Agree, I propose we edit bylaws to do away with them for the future. > > > > This is, in effect, another poll about the direction we're taking 2.x. > > If we can't reach consensus on development directions without voting, > > that's more evidence that the project should be split, IMO. -C > > +1e100 > > Arun > > > > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Steve Loughran <ste...@hortonworks.com> > wrote: > >> On 15 May 2013 10:57, 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. > >>> > >> > >> +1 (binding) > > -- > Arun C. Murthy > Hortonworks Inc. > http://hortonworks.com/ > > >
