hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tomer Shiran <tshi...@maprtech.com>
Subject Re: Release plans
Date Fri, 19 Feb 2010 03:42:33 GMT
If we include symlinks, security and Avro in 0.21, then what's the feature
set for 0.22? Do we have any big items planned?

Thanks,
Tomer

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv@yahoo-inc.com>
> wrote:
> > On 2/18/2010 5:19 PM, Jeff Hammerbacher wrote:
> >>
> >> Do we have consensus around rebasing on 0.21? Anyone already testing on
> >> 0.21
> >> who would be upset if the current branch were to be retired?
> >
> > Rebasing 0.21 will further delay the release.
> > In current 0.21 branch there is some 28 blockers,
> > which will take a couple of weeks to fix.
> > The rebased 0.21 will add to this more issues, and therefore
> > more time. Based on the experience I had time to stabilize
> > the release is measured in months rather than weeks.
>
> I agree that we're probably talking months rather than weeks. However,
> I see a lot of the stabilization time as a fixed cost regardless of
> the number of changes. Certainly there is an O(n) component too, but I
> don't think the stabilization time of a rebased 21 is double the
> stabilization time of current 21. Maybe more like 30% more? Do you
> disagree?
>
> -Todd
>
>
> > --Konstantin
> >
> >
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Owen O'Malley<omalley@apache.org>
>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> >  On Feb 18, 2010, at 3:06 PM, Jeff Hammerbacher wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >    I think the community will step up to knock down some of the
> >>>>
> >>>> >>  blockers once we resolve what should be in the 0.21 release:
the
> >>>> >> current
> >>>> >>  branch, or a rebase on trunk. Do you/Yahoo! have a preference
on
> >>>> >> that
> >>>> >>  front?
> >>>> >>
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >  Yahoo doesn't care. Even if we rebase the 0.21 branch, because of
> the
> >>> >  timing, Yahoo will probably never deploy it. (It take months to push
> a
> >>> >  release through QA and production testing, as I wrote the security
> >>> > release
> >>> >  will hit the pipeline this year (code complete in february, first
> >>> >  integration cluster in april, on all production clusters by august).
> >>> > Yahoo
> >>> >  can't handle another big release until january 2011.
> >>> >
> >>> >  Personally, I'd prefer to rebase 0.21, especially after we have the
> >>> > Maven
> >>> >  story straightened out. Generating good poms would be a huge win for
> >>> >  downstream projects.
> >>> >
> >>> >  One big concern is that backwards incompatibility is a big cost.
> >>> > Especially
> >>> >  if 0.21 (like 0.19) never gets wide deployment, I'd like to start
a
> >>> > vote
> >>> >  that we don't make any API incompatible in 0.22 relative to 0.20.
> >>> >
> >>> >  -- Owen
> >>> >
> >
> >
>



-- 
Tomer Shiran
Director of Product Management | MapR Technologies (www.mapr.com) |
650-804-8657

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