Mailing-List: contact common-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: mattf@apache.org
Sender: mfoley@hortonworks.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADdVdVF9qiuDp20qdC6jFwa47HQ+gd9bJejwiy5D1-52ODQ1ow@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+z3+9Fp0tHsyp8Yg2AqyjUkeuCRt3=p_rq54+M=bFPM9Cm-Fw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPn_vTtAos2QmVSXvGqh_7BgqeBmJ0vAqz21V_vnzkoXGFQrag@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADdVdVGp+X_G+J=qqT=MBxBNaP0i6PZNwBvArGiGUBTXGHEMfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPn_vTtJGQK1hskWpi=dJwNyWwcWeqVKSkQSN+KQKdmmk0Cy9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+z3+9HgArFJkNQ_QcTAu_F_Z45XgeXq3TGmUzBeyPsizJW01w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADY20s5ecshR4sO_YACSuBTswE2Di3WsYAOn27x=ecxUsOriFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADY20s7JOxk_e4WzMhYdb+uscXa2jiaJFSJRP0CsXhGrpe4yDw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEfeEE-iLHHL0KZhdMOMp2q37wHSfCeNv3SHOFWL5SYsyzvK-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADdVdVF9qiuDp20qdC6jFwa47HQ+gd9bJejwiy5D1-52ODQ1ow@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Foley <mattf@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:56:04 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CA+z3+9F_Pn0-KqLL1rr5UAEgXWSy46i6Fnt-iFhw9TTXHLn+jQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Intend to build a 0.20.205.1 candidate next Friday 11
 Nov.
To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e8f60eac98204b26ed432

--90e6ba6e8f60eac98204b26ed432
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I really want this in 0.20.205.1, which will be Hadoop 1.0.0, because of
its importance for
good support of HBase.

Jitendra, please merge it to branch-0.20-security-205.

--Matt (wearing my Apache release manager hat)


On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Suresh Srinivas <suresh@hortonworks.com>wrote:

> +1 for Jitendra's proposal.
>
> Additionally, most of the core of the code that this patch is based on has
> been tested and deployed in clusters at TrendMicro and Facebook.
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Jitendra Pandey
> <jitendra@hortonworks.com>wrote:
>
> > The trunk, 206 patches for HDFS-2246 have been committed. I think it
> makes
> > sense to commit it to 205.1 as well for following reasons (most of it has
> > already been mentioned)
> > a) We intended this patch for 205, but couldn't finish in time. Now that
> > 205.1 branch is still not cut, we could get this in.
> > b) This is not a very risky change. Most of it is new code and will be
> > disabled by default the feature will be disabled.
> > c) The performance benefits are very good, as reported by Todd on the
> jira.
> > Hbase installations will significantly benefit from it.
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Matt Foley <mfoley@hortonworks.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Also, I believe in the HDFS-2246 Jira, Todd requested extra time to
> > > review,
> > > >> due to commitments at Hadoop World.  Todd, would Monday be
> sufficient
> > > extra
> > > >> time, so as not to slow down the anticipated release schedule too
> > much?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I will probably have time to review it by Monday. But the
> > > > review-time concern is separate from the concern about which version
> > > > this should go into.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Reviewing this now... though I still think it shoudl target 0.20.206,
> > > not 0.20.205.1.
> > >
> > > -Todd
> > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Eli Collins <eli@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hey guys,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> HDFS-2246 is not a fix, it's a non-trivial performance
> optimization.
> > > >>> The roadmap page is pretty clear..  "Point releases are made to fix
> > > >>> critical bugs. They do not introduce new features or make other
> > > >>> improvements other than fixing bugs".
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'm not opposed to the change, I'm just pointing out that we agreed
> > to
> > > >>> develop trunk first, and we agreed to follow the release policies
> for
> > > >>> the sustaining branch. I don't see why we can't honor those
> > > >>> agreements, ie why not post a patch for trunk first and then
> backport
> > > >>> it to 206? Reasonable?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Eli
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Suresh Srinivas <
> > > suresh@hortonworks.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>> > Eli,
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > As Jitendra indicated in the jira, this was originally supposed
> to
> > be
> > > >>> part
> > > >>> > of 0.205. Due to time crunc, we could not get this done in 0.205.
> > > This
> > > >>> can
> > > >>> > be turned off by a flag and only can be enabled by users who want
> > to
> > > use
> > > >>> > the functionality. Given that, I feel it is okay to go into
> > 0.205.1.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > I agree it would be good to have a trunk patch for this and make
> it
> > > part
> > > >>> of
> > > >>> > 0.23.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Regards,
> > > >>> > Suresh
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Eli Collins <eli@cloudera.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >> Hey Matt,
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >> Is HDFS-2246 slated for 0.20.205.1?  Given that it's not a bug
> and
> > > is
> > > >>> >> non-trivial it seems better suited for 206 than a point release.
> > > Also,
> > > >>> >> per the sustaining roadmap -
> > http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Roadmap-
> > > >>> >> "Only functionality already committed to trunk should be
> submitted
> > > to
> > > >>> >> a sustaining release." and this functionality does not yet have
> a
> > > >>> >> patch for trunk yet (let alone committed).
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >> Thanks,
> > > >>> >> Eli
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Matt Foley <mattf@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>> >> > Hi all,
> > > >>> >> > I propose to make a 0.20.205.1 candidate soon, with the
> > following
> > > >>> sets of
> > > >>> >> > patches:
> > > >>> >> >
> > > >>> >> >   - deficiencies in HBase support, pointed out by the HBase
> team
> > > and
> > > >>> >> others
> > > >>> >> >   - deficiencies in webhdfs support on secure clusters
> > > >>> >> >   - a couple last-minute fixes submitted to
> > > branch-0.20-security-205
> > > >>> that
> > > >>> >> >   were too late to be included in 205.0
> > > >>> >> >
> > > >>> >> > If you would like other patches included, and you feel it is
> > > >>> appropriate
> > > >>> >> to
> > > >>> >> > have them in 205.1 rather than waiting for 206.0, please
> declare
> > > them
> > > >>> by
> > > >>> >> > setting the "Target Versions" field in their Jiras, and they
> > will
> > > >>> receive
> > > >>> >> > due consideration, assuming that the proposed patch is
> actually
> > > >>> >> > contributed, tested, reviewed, approved, and committed
> > > >>> >> > to branch-0.20-security-205 by the freeze date :-)
> > > >>> >> >
> > > >>> >> > I would like to make the rc0 candidate next Friday, so I
> propose
> > > to
> > > >>> >> declare
> > > >>> >> > 205.1 code freeze at noon, PST, Friday 11 Nov.  If this is a
> > > problem
> > > >>> for
> > > >>> >> > anyone, please let me know.
> > > >>> >> >
> > > >>> >> > Thank you, and best regards,
> > > >>> >> > --Matt (Release Manager)
> > > >>> >> >
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Todd Lipcon
> > > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Todd Lipcon
> > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > >
> >
>

--90e6ba6e8f60eac98204b26ed432--