On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote: > There's no misunderstanding Chris - this release is to unblock downstream. > > As for your question: I don't have a crystal ball; I wish though. I think the > answer depends on will be there more blocking bugs found in the later releases > of Bigtop or other downstream components. > This is bugfix release and, I guess, if there are more bugs found in the > future - more releases would have to be cut. Isn't this is why the software is > being released?
Sure, but they're all backports from the release currently marked for 2.0.5. Either (a) these are really blocker bugs and we should roll a patch release or (b) some bleeding-edge work needs to work around this while branch-2 is released in the next few weeks. If it's not severe enough to justify disrupting the versioning of snapshot maven artifacts in branch-2, then we're clearly not in case (a). I thought this was the result of extensive testing, and 2.0.4.1 was a release to enable additional integration before 2.0.5. If we plan to roll more releases as a subset of the bug fixes committed to branch-2 then just call it 2.0.5. Please make sure it- and any future, intermediate release- is worth the disruption. > Now, the -1: I am not clear about the justification. What exactly we expect to > "work out"? It's become fashionable to close threads and count votes in the middle of the discussion. I changed my vote instead of trusting you. -C > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 01:48PM, Chris Douglas wrote: >> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Arun C Murthy <a...@hortonworks.com> wrote: >> > Why not include MAPREDUCE-4211 as well rather than create one release per >> > patch? >> >> From Cos's description, it sounded like these were backports of fixes >> to help Sqoop2 and fix some build issues. If it's not just to fixup >> leftover bugs in 2.0.4 *once* so downstream projects can integrate >> against 2.0.4.1, and this a release series, then I've completely >> misunderstood the purpose. >> >> Cos, are you planning 2.0.4.2? >> >> > Also, this is the first time we are seeing a four-numbered scheme in >> > Hadoop. Why not call this 2.0.5-alpha? >> >> Good point. Since it contains only backports from branch-2, it would >> make sense for it to be an intermediate release. >> >> I shouldn't have to say this, but I'm changing my vote to -1 while we >> work this out. -C >> >> > On May 24, 2013, at 8:48 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: >> > >> >> All, >> >> >> >> I have created a release candidate (rc0) for hadoop-2.0.4.1-alpha that I >> >> would >> >> like to release. >> >> >> >> This is a stabilization release that includes fixed for a couple a of >> >> issues >> >> discovered in the testing with BigTop 0.6.0 release candidate. >> >> >> >> The RC is available at: >> >> http://people.apache.org/~cos/hadoop-2.0.4.1-alpha-rc0/ >> >> The RC tag in svn is here: >> >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop/common/tags/release-2.0.4.1-alpha-rc0 >> >> >> >> The maven artifacts are available via repository.apache.org. >> >> >> >> Please try the release bits and vote; the vote will run for the usual 7 >> >> days. >> >> >> >> Thanks for your voting >> >> Cos >> >> >> > >> >
