hadoop-common-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release
Date Thu, 18 Feb 2016 22:35:21 GMT
Hi all,

Reviving this thread. I've seen renewed interest in a trunk release since
HDFS erasure coding has not yet made it to branch-2. Along with JDK8, the
shell script rewrite, and many other improvements, I think it's time to
revisit Hadoop 3.0 release plans.

My overall plan is still the same as in my original email: a series of
regular alpha releases leading up to beta and GA. Alpha releases make it
easier for downstreams to integrate with our code, and making them regular
means features can be included when they are ready.

I know there are some incompatible changes waiting in the wings
(i.e. HDFS-6984 making FileStatus a PB rather than Writable, some of
HADOOP-9991 bumping dependency versions) that would be good to get in. If
you have changes like this, please set the target version to 3.0.0 and mark
them "Incompatible". We can use this JIRA query to track:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20in%20(HADOOP%2C%20HDFS%2C%20YARN%2C%20MAPREDUCE)%20and%20%22Target%20Version%2Fs%22%20%3D%20%223.0.0%22%20and%20resolution%3D%22unresolved%22%20and%20%22Hadoop%20Flags%22%3D%22Incompatible%20change%22%20order%20by%20priority

There's some release-related stuff that needs to be sorted out (namely, the
new CHANGES.txt and release note generation from Yetus), but I'd
tentatively like to roll the first alpha a month out, so third week of
March.

Best,
Andrew

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Raymie Stata <rstata@altiscale.com> wrote:

> Avoiding the use of JDK8 language features (and, presumably, APIs)
> means you've abandoned #1, i.e., you haven't (really) bumped the JDK
> source version to JDK8.
>
> Also, note that releasing from trunk is a way of achieving #3, it's
> not a way of abandoning it.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Andrew Wang <andrew.wang@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Raymie,
> >
> > Konst proposed just releasing off of trunk rather than cutting a
> branch-2,
> > and there was general agreement there. So, consider #3 abandoned. 1&2 can
> > be achieved at the same time, we just need to avoid using JDK8 language
> > features in trunk so things can be backported.
> >
> > Best,
> > Andrew
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Raymie Stata <rstata@altiscale.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> In this (and the related threads), I see the following three
> requirements:
> >>
> >> 1. "Bump the source JDK version to JDK8" (ie, drop JDK7 support).
> >>
> >> 2. "We'll still be releasing 2.x releases for a while, with similar
> >> feature sets as 3.x."
> >>
> >> 3. Avoid the "risk of split-brain behavior" by "minimize backporting
> >> headaches. Pulling trunk > branch-2 > branch-2.x is already tedious.
> >> Adding a branch-3, branch-3.x would be obnoxious."
> >>
> >> These three cannot be achieved at the same time.  Which do we abandon?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:45 PM, sanjay Radia <sanjayosrc@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mar 5, 2015, at 3:21 PM, Siddharth Seth <sseth@apache.org>
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> 2) Simplification of configs - potentially separating client side
> >> configs
> >> >> and those used by daemons. This is another source of perpetual
> confusion
> >> >> for users.
> >> > + 1 on this.
> >> >
> >> > sanjay
> >>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message