On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <vino...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > I still have a list of pending API/protocol cleanup in YARN that need to be > in before we even attempt supporting compatibility further down the road.
To let others track these it would be useful if they were tagged in JIRA with a label (e.g. apichange). > There's no way we can support wire compatibility with the APIs in the state > that they are in now. So, +1 for a beta sometime in March. > > There are some early adopters, I am particularly speaking of YARN, who have > been instrumental in helping ironing out the alpha software, some with very > large clusters and end-user base. These users will continue to be affected > with these API/protocol changes, but the alpha tag was clearly meant to > clarify this. I think we should graciously send out a note (on general@) > about an impending beta from where everyone can except a high degree of > compatibility. > > Just caught up with the discussion on the referred JIRAs. I can clearly see > how a single release with an umbrella alpha/beta tag is causing tensions > *only* because we have a single project and product. More reinforcement for > my proclivity towards separate releases and by extension towards the > projects' split. Good point. There's nothing to stop us doing separate releases of sub-project components now. Doing so might help us find incompatibilities between the different components in a release line (2.x at the moment). > > Thanks, > +Vinod > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Arun C Murthy <a...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > >> Thanks Suresh. Adding back other *-dev lists. >> >> On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:58 PM, Suresh Srinivas wrote: >> >> > +1 for a release with all the changes that are committed. That way it >> > carries all the important bug fixes. >> > >> > >> > So, rather than debate more, I had a brief chat with Suresh and Todd. >> Todd >> >> suggested calling the next release as hadoop-2.1.0-alpha to indicate the >> >> incompatibility a little better. This makes sense to me, as long as we >> are >> >> clear that we won't make any further *feature* releases in hadoop-2.0.x >> >> series (obviously we might be forced to do security/bug-fix release). >> >> >> > >> > >> > We have been incorrectly using point releases to introduce features. >> Given >> > there are many features in this release, calling it 2.1.0 instead of >> 2.0.3 >> > makes sense. As you said, I am okay with the proposed plan as long as we >> do >> > not lapse back to introducing new features in point releases meant for >> > critical bugs. >> >> >> > > > -- > +Vinod > Hortonworks Inc. > http://hortonworks.com/
