Let's not dismiss this quite so handily. Sean, Jason, and Stack replied on HADOOP-11656 pointing out that while we could make classpath isolation opt-in via configuration, what we really want longer term is to have it on by default (or just always on). Stack in particular points out the practical difficulties in using an opt-in method in 2.x from a downstream project perspective. It's not pretty.
The plan that both Sean and Jason propose (which I support) is to have an opt-in solution in 2.x, bake it there, then turn it on by default (incompatible) in a new major release. I think this lines up well with my proposal of some alphas and betas leading up to a GA 3.x. I'm also willing to help with 2.x release management if that would help with testing this feature. Even setting aside classpath isolation, a new major release is still justified by JDK8. Somehow this is being ignored in the discussion. Allen, historically the voice of the user in our community, just highlighted it as a major compatibility issue, and myself and Tucu have also expressed our very strong concerns about bumping this in a minor release. 2.7's bump is a unique exception, but this is not something to be cited as precedent or policy. Where does this resistance to a new major release stem from? As I've described from the beginning, this will look basically like a 2.x release, except for the inclusion of classpath isolation by default and target version JDK8. I've expressed my desire to maintain API and wire compatibility, and we can audit the set of incompatible changes in trunk to ensure this. My proposal for doing alpha and beta releases leading up to GA also gives downstreams a nice amount of time for testing and validation. Regards, Andrew On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Arun Murthy <a...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > Awesome, looks like we can just do this in a compatible manner - nothing > else on the list seems like it warrants a (premature) major release. > > Thanks Vinod. > > Arun > > ________________________________________ > From: Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <vino...@hortonworks.com> > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:30 PM > To: common-...@hadoop.apache.org > Cc: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; > yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org > Subject: Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release > > I started pitching in more on that JIRA. > > To add, I think we can and should strive for doing this in a compatible > manner, whatever the approach. Marking and calling it incompatible before > we see proposal/patch seems premature to me. Commented the same on JIRA: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-11656?focusedCommentId=14345875&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14345875 > . > > Thanks > +Vinod > > On Mar 2, 2015, at 8:08 PM, Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com<mailto: > andrew.w...@cloudera.com>> wrote: > > Regarding classpath isolation, based on what I hear from our customers, > it's still a big problem (even after the MR classloader work). The latest > Jackson version bump was quite painful for our downstream projects, and the > HDFS client still leaks a lot of dependencies. Would welcome more > discussion of this on HADOOP-11656, Steve, Colin, and Haohui have already > chimed in. > >
