hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Evert Lammerts <Evert.Lamme...@sara.nl>
Subject RE: Release plans
Date Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:40:30 GMT
I'm sorry for breaking into your discussion as an outsider, but I'm very
curious about the security features you are planning to roll out in March.
Where can I find information about this?

Best regards,
Evert Lammerts

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Booth [mailto:jaybooth@gmail.com]
> Sent: maandag 22 februari 2010 5:55
> To: general@hadoop.apache.org
> Cc: general@hadoop.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Release plans
> 
> Well, since someone has to get the ball rolling as far as release
> masters, I'll nominate Stack and/or someone hbase related for 0.21
> with the primary goal of being "soon"?  They get a big win from append
> and others will gain from the expanded mapreduce lib, better
> schedulers, etc. There are a lot of new features and some major
> changes (project split) already in the 0.21 branch, so IMO it's worth
> considering a release with minimal backports, rather than make binding
> decisions about 0.22 before 0.21 is even in the wild.
> 
> -Jay
> 
> PS sorry Stack
> 
> On Feb 20, 2010, at 5:04 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Eli Collins <eli@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >> Can we make a decision on basing 21 on the current branch and if
> it's
> >> decided that 22 can't remove stuff that was in 20 we'll go back and
> >> do
> >> the necessary additions on 21 and trunk? Suspect that decision will
> >> take a lot more back and forth, but needs to conclude before 21 is
> >> released.
> >>
> >
> > Lets.
> >
> > Regards 0.21/current-branch release, as has been suggested above,
> > first we need to figure the release master.  No release master, no
> > release.  If we have a release master, then I suggest we vote on
> > current branch being released as 0.21 as soon as the blockers are
> > cleared.
> >
> > I don't think we need muddy the above vote with whether or not 0.21
> > maintains API combatibility with 0.20.  IMO, it must (because Y! want
> > to have the 0.20 API in place when January 2011 rolls around).  This
> > makes 0.21 a "minor" release -- something we've not done before (For
> > the record, I also had a misunderstanding that what we were doing up
> > to this was major and patch only).  So, part of the release process
> > would involve ensuring no removed deprecations, etc.
> >
> > As DC has been saying, this requirement that releases between now and
> > January 2011 not change APIs makes 0.20 retroactively into a "major"
> > release.  0.20 is the release where major shifted left in our
> > versioning scheme and minor releases came into play.  0.21 and 0.22
> > will be minor releases. Can we just acknowledge this fact, that there
> > was a step at version 0.20, update the wiki around versioning -- its
> > currently wrong anyways as Elis' points out -- and just move on?
> > Going back and calling 0.20 a 1.0 seems more apt to create confusion
> > and besides, I'm with Allen that hadoop 1.0 needs wire compatibility
> > before the 1.0 can roll around.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > St.Ack
> > P.S. +1 on branching as soon as avro and security are in, etc.

Mime
View raw message