Mailing-List: contact common-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: mattf@apache.org
Sender: mfoley@hortonworks.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPn_vTvcmMXegyJF7C45cHjtmbxVEdFRS=iHtFAu7m9O1dOnwQ@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>
 <CA+z3+9F_Pn0-KqLL1rr5UAEgXWSy46i6Fnt-iFhw9TTXHLn+jQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPn_vTvcmMXegyJF7C45cHjtmbxVEdFRS=iHtFAu7m9O1dOnwQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Foley <mattf@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:20:39 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CA+z3+9GU9DoxhpMnbUKjcZYMRYM1_GAG0d743Q1mx6tzW4LsRA@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=14dae9340ce1ec8c3504b270d9ae

--14dae9340ce1ec8c3504b270d9ae
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Eli,
I said a couple weeks ago that I intended to cut 205.1 on Nov 11 -- that's
the
subject line of this thread :-)  However, I got busy and did not make the
11/11/11
date, for which I apologize.

In the meantime, a severe blocker bug, HADOOP-7853, has been found and fixed
by folks at Yahoo, related to kerberos ticket renewal in secure
environments with Hive.
And HDFS-2246 has become available, and properly committed to trunk.
So I think it is good to incorporate both these issues.

I now plan to cut the RC for 205.1 sometime over this long weekend.
Since this thread has gotten a little off-topic, I will send a new email
announcing that.

Thanks,
--Matt

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Eli Collins <eli@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Hey Matt,
>
> On the jira Jitendra referenced a 205.1 deadline. Where did you set or
> communicate that deadline? The  last I saw on the lists (this thread)
> was that the 205.1 code freeze was Nov 11th.
>
> Thanks,
> Eli
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Matt Foley <mattf@apache.org> wrote:
> > 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
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

--14dae9340ce1ec8c3504b270d9ae--