hadoop-common-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Kanter <rkan...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release
Date Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:38:23 GMT
+1  Happy to help too

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Yongjun Zhang <yzhang@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Thanks Andrew for the proposal.
>
> +1, and I will be happy to help.
>
> --Yongjun
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message