Thank you for your work, Jonathan. I found branch-2 has been unintentionally pushed again. Would you remove it? I think the branch should be protected if possible.
-Akira On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:17 AM Jonathan Hung <jyhung2...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's done. The new commit chain is: trunk -> branch-3.2 -> branch-3.1 -> > branch-2.10 -> branch-2.9 -> branch-2.8 (branch-2 no longer exists, please > don't try to commit to it) > > Completed procedure: > > - Verified everything in old branch-2.10 was in old branch-2 > - Delete old branch-2.10 > - Rename branch-2 to (new) branch-2.10 > - Set version in new branch-2.10 to 2.10.1-SNAPSHOT > - Renamed fix versions from 2.11.0 to 2.10.1 > - Removed 2.11.0 as a version in HADOOP/YARN/HDFS/MAPREDUCE > > > Jonathan Hung > > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:55 AM Jonathan Hung <jyhung2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > FYI, starting the rename process, beginning with INFRA-19521. > > > > Jonathan Hung > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:15 PM Konstantin Shvachko < > shv.had...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hey guys, > >> > >> I think we diverged a bit from the initial topic of this discussion, > >> which is removing branch-2.10, and changing the version of branch-2 from > >> 2.11.0-SNAPSHOT to 2.10.1-SNAPSHOT. > >> Sounds like the subject line for this thread "Making 2.10 the last minor > >> 2.x release" confused people. > >> It is in fact a wider matter that can be discussed when somebody > actually > >> proposes to release 2.11, which I understand nobody does at the moment. > >> > >> So if anybody objects removing branch-2.10 please make an argument. > >> Otherwise we should go ahead and just do it next week. > >> I see people still struggling to keep branch-2 and branch-2.10 in sync. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> --Konstantin > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 3:49 PM Jonathan Hung <jyhung2...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Thanks for the detailed thoughts, everyone. > >>> > >>> Eric (Badger), my understanding is the same as yours re. minor vs patch > >>> releases. As for putting features into minor/patch releases, if we > keep the > >>> convention of putting new features only into minor releases, my > assumption > >>> is still that it's unlikely people will want to get them into branch-2 > >>> (based on the 2.10.0 release process). For the java 11 issue, we > haven't > >>> even really removed support for java 7 in branch-2 (much less java 8), > so I > >>> feel moving to java 11 would go along with a move to branch 3. And as > you > >>> mentioned, if people really want to use java 11 on branch-2, we can > always > >>> revive branch-2. But for now I think the convenience of not needing to > port > >>> to both branch-2 and branch-2.10 (and below) outweighs the cost of > >>> potentially needing to revive branch-2. > >>> > >>> Jonathan Hung > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:50 AM Eric Yang <ey...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> +1 for 2.10.x as last release for 2.x version. > >>>> > >>>> Software would become more compatible when more companies stress test > >>>> the same software and making improvements in trunk. Some may be extra > >>>> caution on moving up the version because obligation internally to keep > >>>> things running. Company obligation should not be the driving force to > >>>> maintain Hadoop branches. There is no proper collaboration in the > >>>> community when every name brand company maintains its own Hadoop 2.x > >>>> version. I think it would be more healthy for the community to > reduce the > >>>> branch forking and spend energy on trunk to harden the software. > This will > >>>> give more confidence to move up the version than trying to fix n > >>>> permutations breakage like Flash fixing the timeline. > >>>> > >>>> Apache license stated, there is no warranty of any kind for code > >>>> contributions. Fewer community release process should improve > software > >>>> quality when eyes are on trunk, and help steering toward the same end > goals. > >>>> > >>>> regards, > >>>> Eric > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 3:03 PM Eric Badger > >>>> <ebad...@verizonmedia.com.invalid> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hello all, > >>>>> > >>>>> Is it written anywhere what the difference is between a minor release > >>>>> and a > >>>>> point/dot/maintenance (I'll use "point" from here on out) release? I > >>>>> have > >>>>> looked around and I can't find anything other than some compatibility > >>>>> documentation in 2.x that has since been removed in 3.x [1] [2]. I > >>>>> think > >>>>> this would help shape my opinion on whether or not to keep branch-2 > >>>>> alive. > >>>>> My current understanding is that we can't really break compatibility > in > >>>>> either a minor or point release. But the only mention of the > difference > >>>>> between minor and point releases is how to deal with Stable, > Evolving, > >>>>> and > >>>>> Unstable tags, and how to deal with changing default configuration > >>>>> values. > >>>>> So it seems like there really isn't a big official difference between > >>>>> the > >>>>> two. In my mind, the functional difference between the two is that > the > >>>>> minor releases may have added features and rewrites, while the point > >>>>> releases only have bug fixes. This might be an incorrect > >>>>> understanding, but > >>>>> that's what I have gathered from watching the releases over the last > >>>>> few > >>>>> years. Whether or not this is a correct understanding, I think that > >>>>> this > >>>>> needs to be documented somewhere, even if it is just a convention. > >>>>> > >>>>> Given my assumed understanding of minor vs point releases, here are > the > >>>>> pros/cons that I can think of for having a branch-2. Please add on or > >>>>> correct me for anything you feel is missing or inadequate. > >>>>> Pros: > >>>>> - Features/rewrites/higher-risk patches are less likely to be put > into > >>>>> 2.10.x > >>>>> - It is less necessary to move to 3.x > >>>>> > >>>>> Cons: > >>>>> - Bug fixes are less likely to be put into 2.10.x > >>>>> - An extra branch to maintain > >>>>> - Committers have an extra branch (5 vs 4 total branches) to commit > >>>>> patches to if they should go all the way back to 2.10.x > >>>>> - It is less necessary to move to 3.x > >>>>> > >>>>> So on the one hand you get added stability in fewer features being > >>>>> committed to 2.10.x, but then on the other you get fewer bug fixes > >>>>> being > >>>>> committed. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to make this > tradeoff. > >>>>> But > >>>>> we don't live in a perfect world and committers will make mistakes > >>>>> either > >>>>> because of lack of knowledge or simply because they made a mistake. > If > >>>>> we > >>>>> have a branch-2, committers will forget, not know to, or choose not > to > >>>>> (for > >>>>> whatever reason) commit valid bug fixes back all the way to > >>>>> branch-2.10. If > >>>>> we don't have a branch-2, committers who want their borderline risky > >>>>> feature in the 2.x line will err on the side of putting it into > >>>>> branch-2.10 > >>>>> instead of proposing the creation of a branch-2. Clearly I have made > >>>>> quite > >>>>> a few assumptions here based on my own experiences, so I would like > to > >>>>> hear > >>>>> if others have similar or opposing views. > >>>>> > >>>>> As far as 3.x goes, to me it seems like some of the reasoning for > >>>>> killing > >>>>> branch-2 is due to an effort to push the community towards 3.x. This > >>>>> is why > >>>>> I have added movement to 3.x as both a pro and a con. As a community > >>>>> trying > >>>>> to move forward, keeping as many companies on similar branches as > >>>>> possible > >>>>> is a good way to make sure the code is well-tested. However, from a > >>>>> stability point of view, moving to 3.x is still scary and being able > to > >>>>> stay on 2.x until you are comfortable to move is very nice. The > 2.10.0 > >>>>> bridge release effort has been very good at making it possible for > >>>>> people > >>>>> to move from 2.x in 3.x, but the diff between 2.x and 3.x is so large > >>>>> that > >>>>> it is reasonable for companies to want to be extra cautious with 3.x > >>>>> due to > >>>>> potential performance degradation at large scale. > >>>>> > >>>>> A question I'm pondering is what happens when we move to Java 11 and > >>>>> someone is still on 2.x? If they want to backport HADOOP-15338 > >>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-15338> for Java 11 > >>>>> support to > >>>>> 2.x, surely not everyone is going to want that (at least not > >>>>> immediately). > >>>>> The 2.10 documentation states, "The JVM requirements will not change > >>>>> across > >>>>> point releases within the same minor release except if the JVM > version > >>>>> under question becomes unsupported" [1], so this would warrant a 2.11 > >>>>> release until Java 8 becomes unsupported (though one could argue that > >>>>> it is > >>>>> already unsupported since Oracle is no longer giving public Java 8 > >>>>> update). > >>>>> If we don't keep branch-2 around now, would a Java 11 backport be the > >>>>> catalyst for a branch-2 revival? > >>>>> > >>>>> Not sure if this really leads to any sort of answer from me on > whether > >>>>> or > >>>>> not we should keep branch-2 alive, but these are the things that I am > >>>>> weighing in my mind. For me, the bigger problem beyond having > branch-2 > >>>>> or > >>>>> not is committers not being on the same page with where they should > >>>>> commit > >>>>> their patches. > >>>>> > >>>>> Eric > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] > >>>>> > >>>>> > https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r2.10.0/hadoop-project-dist/hadoop-common/Compatibility.html > >>>>> [2] > >>>>> > >>>>> > https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r3.0.0/hadoop-project-dist/hadoop-common/Compatibility.html > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 2:49 PM epa...@apache.org <epa...@apache.org > > > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > Hi Konstantin, > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Sure, I understand those concerns. On the other hand, I worry about > >>>>> the > >>>>> > stability of 2.10, since we will be on it for a couple of years at > >>>>> least. > >>>>> > I worry > >>>>> > that some committers may want to put new features into a branch 2 > >>>>> release, > >>>>> > and without a branch-2, they will go directly into 2.10. Since we > >>>>> don't > >>>>> > always > >>>>> > catch corner cases or performance problems for some time (usually > >>>>> not > >>>>> > until > >>>>> > the release is deployed to a busy, 4-thousand node cluster), it > may > >>>>> be > >>>>> > very > >>>>> > difficult to back out those changes. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > It sounds like I'm in the minority here, so I'm not nixing the > idea, > >>>>> but I > >>>>> > do > >>>>> > have these reservations. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Thanks, > >>>>> > -Eric > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > On Tuesday, November 19, 2019, 1:04:15 AM CST, Konstantin Shvachko > < > >>>>> > shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > Hi Eric, > >>>>> > > >>>>> > We had a long discussion on this list regarding making the 2.10 > >>>>> release the > >>>>> > last of branch-2 releases. We intended 2.10 as a bridge release > >>>>> between > >>>>> > Hadoop 2 and 3. We may have bug-fix releases or 2.10, but 2.11 is > >>>>> not in > >>>>> > the picture right now, and many people may object this idea. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > I understand Jonathan's proposal as an attempt to > >>>>> > 1. eliminate confusion which branches people should commit their > >>>>> back-ports > >>>>> > to > >>>>> > 2. save engineering effort committing to more branches than > necessary > >>>>> > > >>>>> > "Branches are cheap" as our founder used to say. If we ever decide > to > >>>>> > release 2.11 we can resurrect the branch. > >>>>> > Until then I am in favor of Jonathan's proposal +1. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Thanks, > >>>>> > --Konstantin > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:41 AM Jonathan Hung < > jyhung2...@gmail.com > >>>>> > > >>>>> > wrote: > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Thanks Eric for the comments - regarding your concerns, I feel > the > >>>>> pros > >>>>> > > outweigh the cons. To me, the chances of patch releases on 2.10.x > >>>>> are > >>>>> > much > >>>>> > > higher than a new 2.11 minor release. (There didn't seem to be > many > >>>>> > people > >>>>> > > outside of our company who expressed interest in getting new > >>>>> features to > >>>>> > > branch-2 prior to the 2.10.0 release.) Even now, a few weeks > after > >>>>> 2.10.0 > >>>>> > > release, there's 29 patches that have gone into branch-2 and 9 in > >>>>> > > branch-2.10, so it's already diverged quite a bit. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > In any case, we can always reverse this decision if we really > need > >>>>> to, by > >>>>> > > recreating branch-2. But this proposal would reduce a lot of > >>>>> confusion > >>>>> > IMO. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > Jonathan Hung > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 11:41 AM epa...@apache.org < > >>>>> epa...@apache.org> > >>>>> > > wrote: > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Thanks Jonathan for opening the discussion. > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > I am not in favor of this proposal. 2.10 was very recently > >>>>> released, > >>>>> > and > >>>>> > > > moving to 2.10 will take some time for the community. It seems > >>>>> > premature > >>>>> > > to > >>>>> > > > make a decision at this point that there will never be a need > >>>>> for a > >>>>> > 2.11 > >>>>> > > > release. > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > -Eric > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019, 8:51:59 PM CST, Jonathan Hung > < > >>>>> > > > jyhung2...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > Hi folks, > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > Given the release of 2.10.0, and the fact that it's intended to > >>>>> be a > >>>>> > > bridge > >>>>> > > > release to Hadoop 3.x [1], I'm proposing we make 2.10.x the > last > >>>>> minor > >>>>> > > > release line in branch-2. Currently, the main issue is that > >>>>> there's > >>>>> > many > >>>>> > > > fixes going into branch-2 (the theoretical 2.11.0) that's not > >>>>> going > >>>>> > into > >>>>> > > > branch-2.10 (which will become 2.10.1), so the fixes in > branch-2 > >>>>> will > >>>>> > > > likely never see the light of day unless they are backported to > >>>>> > > > branch-2.10. > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > To do this, I propose we: > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > - Delete branch-2.10 > >>>>> > > > - Rename branch-2 to branch-2.10 > >>>>> > > > - Set version in the new branch-2.10 to 2.10.1-SNAPSHOT > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > This way we get all the current branch-2 fixes into the 2.10.x > >>>>> release > >>>>> > > > line. Then the commit chain will look like: trunk -> branch-3.2 > >>>>> -> > >>>>> > > > branch-3.1 -> branch-2.10 -> branch-2.9 -> branch-2.8 > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > Thoughts? > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > Jonathan Hung > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > [1] > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > https://www.mail-archive.com/yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org/msg29479.html > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org > >>>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>> >
