To close the loop on this one, I created a label for the candidate list of patches: https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=labels%20%3D%202.6.1-candidate<https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=labels%20=%202.6.1-candidate>, in order to make progress while the issue is still hot.
The discussion is continuing on the 2.6.1 release planning thread. Thanks +Vinod On Jul 15, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org<mailto:apurt...@apache.org>> wrote: Inline On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < vino...@hortonworks.com<mailto:vino...@hortonworks.com>> wrote: I can understand these (sort of newish) questions from hbase-dev. We already have a well laid-out release-management process. If people want to learn more about how it works, please head over to http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html. In terms of 2.6.1 release management, it wasn’t stuck for lack of volunteers for RM. I originally was driving it [1], and then Akira recently volunteered too in a separate thread [2] (which I totally missed participating in before), so we have enough help. Right, but in that thread it looks like you were stymied sorting through the potential set of updates to apply to the patch release. That was the motivation behind my sharing a bit about HBase branch RMs. Totally fine if that's not something Hadoop wants to explore. I only offered it as a data point where another project avoids that problem with a different kind of RM focus. And, so, that's that FWIW It is clearly acknowledged there is a demand for 2.6.1, we now have to figure out the mechanics, agreeing on a reasonable & common list of fixes to start with. Thank you very much for this consideration! Tx for the feedback so far @hbase-dev! I agree with Karthik earlier - let’s continue the discussion in hadoop-dev in the release thread [1] for 2.6.1. Thanks +Vinod [1] Planning Hadoop 2.6.1 release http://markmail.org/message/sbykjn5xgnksh6wg [2] [DISCUSS] More Maintenance Releases http://s.apache.org/MMR On Jul 15, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net<mailto: st...@duboce.net>> wrote: Is there anyone interested in volunteering to run a 2.6.1 release (Akira?)? You'd get some help (especially if the bar is set high and only critical bug fixes are allowed in: i.e. no features, no 'perf' fixes, no jar updates, and so on). St.Ack On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Chris Douglas <cdoug...@apache.org <mailto:cdoug...@apache.org>> wrote: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com<mailto: bus...@cloudera.com>> wrote: Alternatively, why not appoint a Release Manager for the minor release line and then allow them to arbitrate when there's disagreement about inclusion? This has worked well in the HBase community. Release managers aren't appointed in Hadoop. Any committer can RM a release branch and encourage others to help with it. An RM can set the bar arbitrarily, but an RC only becomes a release when a majority of PMC votes approve it in a VOTE. -C On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com<mailto: bus...@cloudera.com>> wrote: Why not just include all backwards compatible bug fixes? Alternatively, why not appoint a Release Manager for the minor release line and then allow them to arbitrate when there's disagreement about inclusion? This has worked well in the HBase community. On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Karthik Kambatla <ka...@cloudera.com <mailto:ka...@cloudera.com>> wrote: As I proposed in the other thread, how about we adopting the following model: x.y.1 releases have all Blocker, Critical, Major bug fixes applied to the next minor release. x.y.2 releases have all Blocker, Critical bug fixes applied to the next minor release. x.y.3 releases have all Blocker bug fixes applied to next minor release. Here I am assuming there are no security-fix-only or other urgent releases. We could apply this approach for 2.7.x onwards, and do an adhoc 2.6 release. On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < vino...@hortonworks.com<mailto:vino...@hortonworks.com>> wrote: Yeah, I started a thread while back on this one ( http://markmail.org/message/sbykjn5xgnksh6wg) and had many offline discussions re 2.6.1. The biggest problem I found offline was about what bug-fixes are acceptable and what aren’t for everyone wishing to consume 2.6.1. Given the number of bug-fixes that went into 2.7.x and into branch-2.8, figuring out a set of patches that is acceptable for everyone is a huge challenge which kind of stalled my attempts. Thanks +Vinod On Jul 15, 2015, at 8:57 AM, Sangjin Lee <sjl...@gmail.com<mailto: sjl...@gmail.com>> wrote: Strong +1 for having a 2.6.1 release. I understand Vinod has been trying to get that effort going but it's been stalled a little bit. It would be good to rekindle that effort. Companies with big hadoop 2.x deployments (including mine) have always tried to stabilize a 2.x release by testing/collecting/researching critical issues on the release. Each would come up with its own set of fixes to backport. We would also communicate it via offline channels. During the hadoop summit, we thought it would be great if we all came together and create a public stability/bugfix release on top of 2.x (2.6.1 for 2.6 for example) with all the critical issues fixed. Thanks, Sangjin On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Tsuyoshi Ozawa <oz...@apache.org<mailto: oz...@apache.org>> wrote: Thank you for the notification. Trying to back port bug fixes. - Tsuyoshi On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com<mailto: bus...@cloudera.com>> wrote: Hi Hadoopers! Over in HBase we've been discussing the impact of our dependencies on our downstream users. As our most fundamental dependency, Hadoop plays a big role in the operational cost of running an HBase instance. Currently the HBase 1.y release line supports Hadoop 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6[1]. We don't drop Hadoop minor release lines in minor releases so we are unlikely remove anything from this set until HBase 2.0, probably at the end of 2015 / start of 2016 (and currently we plan to continue supporting at least 2.4 for HBase 2.0 [2]). Lately we've been discussing updating our shipped binaries to Hadoop 2.6, following some stability testing by part of our community[3]. Unfortunately, 2.6.0 in particular has a couple of bugs that could destroy HBase clusters should users decide to turn on HDFS encryption[4]. Our installation instructions tell folks to replace these jars with the version of Hadoop they are actually running, but not all users follow those instructions so we want to minimize the pain for them. Regular maintenance releases are key to keeping operational burdens low for our downstream users; we don't want them to be forced to choose between living with broken systems and stomaching the risk of upgrades across minor/major version numbers. Looking back over the three aforementioned Hadoop versions, 2.6 hasn't had a patch release since 2.6.0 came out in Nov 2014, when 2.5 had its last patch release as well. Hadoop 2.4 looks to be a year without a release[5]. On our discussion of shipping Hadoop 2.6 binaries, one of your PMC members mentioned that with continued work on the 2.7 line y'all weren't planning any additional releases of the earlier minor versions[6]. The HBase community requests that Hadoop pick up making bug-fix-only patch releases again on a regular schedule[7]. Preferably on the 2.6 line and preferably monthly. We realize that given the time gap since 2.6.0 it will likely take a big to get 2.6.1 together, but after that it should take much less effort to continue. [1]: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop [2]: http://s.apache.org/ReP [3]: HBASE-13339 [4]: HADOOP-11674 and HADOOP-11710 [5]: http://hadoop.apache.org/releases.html [6]: http://s.apache.org/MTY [7]: http://s.apache.org/ViP -- Sean -- Karthik Kambatla Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc. -------------------------------------------- http://five.sentenc.es -- Sean -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
