Thanks Jason and Junping for the comments! I will update the spreadsheet for HADOOP-13362 and YARN-4794.
As for continuing 2.6.x releases, please see the discussion in the "[DISCUSS] 2.6.x line releases" thread. Sean, Akira and Zhe all expressed interest in additional 2.6.x releases. I started this thread based off of that interest. I understand there is a burden to maintaining a large number of branches. I am not sure what the community's end-of-life policy is, but maybe we can issue a warning with the 2.6.5 release stating when we will stop maintaining the release line. This at least gives users some time to make migration plans to a newer version. On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Junping Du <j...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > Thanks Chris for bring up this discussion. > Before we going to detail discussion of releasing 2.6.5, I have a quick > question here: do we think it is necessary to continue to release > branch-2.6, like 2.6.5, etc after 2.7 is out for more than 1 year. Any > reason to not suggest users to upgrade to 2.7.3 releases for latest fixes > which is in releasing now? > My major concern on more release efforts on legacy branches is the same > with my comments on other release plan before - it seems too many releases > trains get planned at the same time window (2.6.x, 2.7.x, 2.8, 3.0-alpha, > 3.1-beta, etc.). Not only user could get confusing on this, but also I > suspect we don't have so many bandwidth in community to push forward so > these releases in high quality during the same time window - just like > Chris Douglas mentioned in another email thread on committer activity and > bandwidth. IMO, may be it is better to focus on limited number of releases > and move them faster? > > BTW, I agree with Jason that HADOOP-13362 is not needed for branch-2.6 > unless we backport container metrics related patches there. > > > Thanks, > > Junping > ________________________________________ > From: Jason Lowe <jl...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID> > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 4:14 PM > To: Chris Trezzo; common-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org; > mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Release thread] 2.6.5 release activities > > Thanks for organizing this, Chris! > I don't believe HADOOP-13362 is needed since it's related to > ContainerMetrics. ContainerMetrics weren't added until 2.7 by YARN-2984. > YARN-4794 looks applicable to 2.6. The change drops right in except it > has JDK7-isms (multi-catch clause), so it needs a slight change. > > Jason > > From: Chris Trezzo <ctre...@gmail.com> > To: "common-...@hadoop.apache.org" <common-...@hadoop.apache.org>; > hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org; "mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org" < > mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org>; "yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org" < > yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org> > Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 7:32 PM > Subject: [Release thread] 2.6.5 release activities > > Based on the sentiment in the "[DISCUSS] 2.6.x line releases" thread, I > have moved forward with some of the initial effort in creating a 2.6.5 > release. I am forking this thread so we have a dedicated 2.6.5 release > thread. > > I have gone through the git logs and gathered a list of JIRAs that are in > branch-2.7 but are missing from branch-2.6. I limited the diff to issues > with a commit date after 1/26/2016. I did this because 2.6.4 was cut from > branch-2.6 around that date (http://markmail.org/message/xmy7ebs6l3643o5e) > and presumably issues that were committed to branch-2.7 before then were > already looked at as part of 2.6.4. > > I have collected these issues in a spreadsheet and have given them an > initial triage on whether they are candidates for a backport to 2.6.5. The > spreadsheet is sorted by the status of the issues with the potential > backport candidates at the top. Here is a link to the spreadsheet: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lfG2CYQ7W4q3olWpOCo6EBAey1WYC > 8hTRUemHvYPPzY/edit?usp=sharing > > As of now, I have identified 16 potential backport candidates. Please take > a look at the list and let me know if there are any that you think should > not be on the list, or ones that you think I have missed. This was just an > initial high-level triage, so there could definitely be issues that are > miss-labeled. > > As a side note: we still need to look at the pre-commit build for 2.6 and > follow up with an addendum for HADOOP-12800. > > Thanks everyone! > Chris Trezzo > >
