hadoop-common-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ravi Prakash <ravihad...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Branch merges and 3.0.0-beta1 scope
Date Wed, 23 Aug 2017 21:27:27 GMT
Also, when people +1 a merge, can they please describe if they did testing
/ use the feature in addition to what is already described in the thread?

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Vrushali Channapattan <
vrushalic2016@gmail.com> wrote:

> For timeline service v2, we have completed all subtasks under YARN-5355
> [1].
>
> We initiated a merge-to-trunk vote [2] yesterday.
>
> thanks
> Vrushali
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-5355
> [2]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-common-
> dev/201708.mbox/%3CCAE=b_fbLT2J+Ezb4wqdN_UwBiG1Sd5kpqGaw+9Br__zou5yNTQ@
> mail.gmail.com%3E
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <
> vinodkv@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Agreed. I was very clearly not advocating for rushing in features. If you
> > have followed my past emails, I have only strongly advocated features be
> > worked in branches and get merged when they are in a reasonable state.
> >
> > Each branch contributor group should look at their readiness and merge
> > stuff in assuming that the branch reached a satisfactory state. That’s
> it.
> >
> > From release management perspective, blocking features just because we
> are
> > a month close to the deadline is not reasonable. Let the branch
> > contributors rationalize, make this decision and the rest of us can
> support
> > them in making the decision.
> >
> > +Vinod
> >
> > > At this point, there have been three planned alphas from September 2016
> > until July 2017 to "get in features".  While a couple of upcoming
> features
> > are "a few weeks" away, I think all of us are aware how predictable
> > software development schedules can be.  I think we can also all agree
> that
> > rushing just to meet a release deadline isn't the best practice when it
> > comes to software development either.
> > >
> > > Andrew has been very clear about his goals at each step and I think
> > Wangda's willingness to not rush in resource types was an appropriate
> > response.  I'm sympathetic to the goals of getting in a feature for 3.0,
> > but it might be a good idea for each project that is a "few weeks away"
> to
> > seriously look at the readiness compared to the features which have been
> > testing for 6+ months already.
> > >
> > > -Ray
> >
> >
>

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