Mailing-List: contact common-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of mfoley@hortonworks.com
 designates 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: mattf@apache.org
Sender: mfoley@hortonworks.com
In-Reply-To: <7a903b13204315f5979dd84f4e3a59d4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <48A037BF-5EE8-44EA-BE27-0BBB46DA0B5B@hortonworks.com>
 <CALwhT940Ck9rWmYEVKWMC40yFJgDSyNvoDDyzzdxZdMFHajcQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJs-t7Nd17PwwupY+es=163J6xyAcQnbdX=7XRFrc-X=iiFMMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1F4F020D-D790-473F-8279-BB2BAEEAF0CF@apache.org>
 <7a903b13204315f5979dd84f4e3a59d4@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Foley <mattf@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 13:23:52 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CA+z3+9Hmbk9q7yLK01Fo8bDdRv25Z6BRue-HdR8CYfQkWdZ3bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta
To: "common-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <common-dev@hadoop.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01160d6022df2804dcc78907

--089e01160d6022df2804dcc78907
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

+1 (binding).  I think it's important to maintain the release continuity,
otherwise we could end up with the 0.20.2 / 0.20.200 problem all over again
(parallel "stable" dev tracks without a parent-child relationship to each
other, ie with disjoint subsets of functionality).  I consider achieving a
stable basis for API backward compat very important.  And Arun is
committing to hit beta in the very near future.

--Matt


On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Bikas Saha <bikas@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> I am +1 to the proposal because it maintains the original cadence a bunch
> of us committers/contributors have been working with.
>
> Windows related changes have been made in a conservative manner so as not
> to destabilize the code base. The changes are being extensively tested and
> validated by community members, especially those from Microsoft.
>
> YARN-397 jiras are mainly enhancements that can be added in a backwards
> compatible manner. Would be great if some of them make it but I would not
> hold the release for them.
>
> Let us all make the effort to get the release out with all the long
> awaited and useful features as planned.
> Bikas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli [mailto:vinodkv@hortonworks.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 12:20 PM
> To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta
>
>
> I also feel that some of YARN-397 should go in. If you also feel so,
> please put in a +1 to state your intention.
>
> Thanks,
> +Vinod
>
> On May 15, 2013, at 11:32 AM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote:
>
> > Do we need to add YARN-397?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Karthik Kambatla
> <kasha@cloudera.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Arun,
> >>
> >> Can we add HADOOP-9517 to the list - having compatibility guidelines
> >> should help us support users and downstream projects better?
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Karthik
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Arun C Murthy <acm@hortonworks.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Folks,
> >>>
> >>> A considerable number of people have expressed confusion regarding
> >>> the recent vote on 2.0.5, beta status etc. given lack of specifics,
> >>> the
> >> voting
> >>> itself (validity of the vote itself, whose votes are binding) etc.
> >>>
> >>> IMHO technical arguments (incompatibility b/w 2.0 & 2.1, current
> >> stability
> >>> of 3 features under debate etc.) have been lost in the discussion in
> >> favor
> >>> of non-technical (almost dramatic) nuances such as "seizing the
> moment".
> >>> There is now dangerous talk of tolerating incompatibility b/w 2.0
> >>> and
> >> 2.1)
> >>> - this is a red flag for me; particularly when there are just 3
> >>> features being debated and active committers and contributors are
> >>> confident of and ready to stand by their work. All patches, I
> >>> believe, are ready to be merged in the the next few days per
> >>> discussions on jira. This will, clearly, not delay the other API work
> which everyone agrees is crucial.
> >> As
> >>> a result, I feel no recourse but to restart a new vote - all
> >>> attempts at calm, reasoned, civil discussion based on technical
> >>> arguments have come
> >> to
> >>> naught - I apologize for the thrash caused to everyone's attention.
> >>>
> >>> To get past all of this confusion, I'd like to present an alternate,
> >>> specific proposal for consideration.
> >>>
> >>> I propose we continue the original plan and make a 2.0.5-beta
> >>> release by May end with the following content:
> >>> # HDFS-347
> >>> # HDFS Snapshots
> >>> # Windows support
> >>> # Necessary & final API/protocol changes such as:
> >>> * Final YARN API changes: YARN-386
> >>> * MR Binary Compatibility: MAPREDUCE-5108
> >>> * Final RPC cleanup: HADOOP-8990
> >>>
> >>> People working on the above features have all expressed considerable
> >>> comfort with them and are ready to stand-by to help expedite any
> >> necessary
> >>> bug-fixes etc. to get to stabilization quickly. I'm confident we can
> >>> get this release out by end of May. This sets stage for a hadoop-2.x
> >>> GA
> >> release
> >>> right after with some more testing - this means I think I can
> >>> quickly
> >> turn
> >>> around and make bug-fix releases as necessary right after 2.0.5-beta.
> >>>
> >>> I request that people consider helping out with this plan and sign
> >>> up to help push hadoop-2.x to stability as outlined above. I believe
> >>> this will help achieve our shared goals of quickly stabilizing
> >>> hadoop-2 and help ensure we can support it for forseeable future in
> >>> a compatible manner for the benefit of our users and downstream
> projects.
> >>>
> >>> Please vote, the vote will run the normal 7 days. Obviously, I'm +1.
> >>>
> >>> thanks,
> >>> Arun
> >>>
> >>> PS: To keep this discussion grounded in technical details I've moved
> >>> this to dev@ (bcc general@).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alejandro
>

--089e01160d6022df2804dcc78907--