hadoop-common-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sanjay Radia <sanjayo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release
Date Tue, 03 Mar 2015 02:38:20 GMT
Andrew 
  Thanks for bringing up the issue of moving to Java8. Java8 is important
However, I am not seeing a strong motivation for changing the major number.
We can go to Java8 in  the 2.series. 
The classpath issue for Hadoop-11656 is too minor to force a major number change (no pun intended).

Lets separate the issue of Java8 and Hadoop 3.0

sanjay


> On Mar 2, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Andrew Wang <andrew.wang@cloudera.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi devs,
> 
> It's been a year and a half since 2.x went GA, and I think we're about due
> for a 3.x release.
> Notably, there are two incompatible changes I'd like to call out, that will
> have a tremendous positive impact for our users.
> 
> First, classpath isolation being done at HADOOP-11656, which has been a
> long-standing request from many downstreams and Hadoop users.
> 
> Second, bumping the source and target JDK version to JDK8 (related to
> HADOOP-11090), which is important since JDK7 is EOL in April 2015 (two
> months from now). In the past, we've had issues with our dependencies
> discontinuing support for old JDKs, so this will future-proof us.
> 
> Between the two, we'll also have quite an opportunity to clean up and
> upgrade our dependencies, another common user and developer request.
> 
> I'd like to propose that we start rolling a series of monthly-ish series of
> 3.0 alpha releases ASAP, with myself volunteering to take on the RM and
> other cat herding responsibilities. There are already quite a few changes
> slated for 3.0 besides the above (for instance the shell script rewrite) so
> there's already value in a 3.0 alpha, and the more time we give downstreams
> to integrate, the better.
> 
> This opens up discussion about inclusion of other changes, but I'm hoping
> to freeze incompatible changes after maybe two alphas, do a beta (with no
> further incompat changes allowed), and then finally a 3.x GA. For those
> keeping track, that means a 3.x GA in about four months.
> 
> I would also like to stress though that this is not intended to be a big
> bang release. For instance, it would be great if we could maintain wire
> compatibility between 2.x and 3.x, so rolling upgrades work. Keeping
> branch-2 and branch-3 similar also makes backports easier, since we're
> likely maintaining 2.x for a while yet.
> 
> Please let me know any comments / concerns related to the above. If people
> are friendly to the idea, I'd like to cut a branch-3 and start working on
> the first alpha.
> 
> Best,
> Andrew


Mime
View raw message