hadoop-common-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Devaraj Das (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (HADOOP-1161) need improved release process
Date Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:50:32 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1161?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12484765
] 

Devaraj Das commented on HADOOP-1161:
-------------------------------------

Are we very different from projects like Apache's httpd ? If not, can't we take the best practices
from such projects within Apache? IMHO, we should consider those before we invent some convention
of our own.

> need improved release process
> -----------------------------
>
>                 Key: HADOOP-1161
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1161
>             Project: Hadoop
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: build
>            Reporter: Doug Cutting
>             Fix For: 0.13.0
>
>
> Hadoop's release process needs improvement.  We should better ensure that releases are
stable, not releasing versions that have not been proven stable on large clusters, and we
should better observe Apache's release procedures.  Once agreed on, this process should be
documented in http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-hadoop/HowToRelease.
> Here's a proposal:
> . candidate release builds should be placed in lucene.apache.org/hadoop/dev/dist
> . candidate artifacts should be accompanied by a md5 and pgp signatures
> . a 72-hour vote for the release artifact should be called on hadoop-dev.
> . 3 binding +1 votes and a majority are required
> . if the vote passes, the release can then posted to www.apache.org/dist/lucene/hadoop
for mirroring
> This would bring us into accord with Apache's requirements, and better permit large-cluster
validation.
> We should also build consensus for a release before we commence this process.  Perhaps
we should aim for releases every two months instead of every month.  We should perhaps develop
more elaborate branching and merging conventions around releases.  Currently we mostly lock-out
changes intended for release X+1 from trunk until release X is complete, which can be awkward.
 How can we better manage that?

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


Mime
View raw message