hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "M. C. Srivas" <mcsri...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: DISCUSSION: Cut a hadoop-0.20.0-append release from the tip of branch-0.20-append branch?
Date Thu, 23 Dec 2010 18:15:38 GMT
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Jakob Homan <jghoman@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's difficult to support this proposal knowing how much time would be
> spent preparing an official release, continuing to support it and
> continuing to two support two separate implementations of append.  I
> believe that effort would be better spent getting out a kick-ass 22
> (or, barring that, a *really* kick-ass 23).
>

Regardless, there will still be 2 incompatible "branches". And that is only
the beginning.

Some future features will be done only on branch 1 (since company 1 uses
that), and other features on branch 2 (by company 2, since they prefer
branch 2),  thereby further separating the two branches.

If the goal is to avoid the split, then there are only 2 choices:
  (a) merge both
  (b) abandon one or the other.

Which one is one willing to stomach?




>
> The Promised Land that we say we're all trying to get to is regular,
> timely, feature-complete, tested, innovative but stable releases of
> new versions of Apache Hadoop.  Missing out any one of those criteria
> discovered will continue (and has continued) the current situation
> where quasi-official branches and outside distributions fill the void
> such a release should.  The effort to maintain this offical branch and
> fix the bugs that will be discovered could be better spent moving us
> closer to that goal.
>
> I'm certainly sympathetic to the difficult position our quagmire has
> placed HBase into.  However, the current proposal would hurt HDFS to
> help HBase. The best solution for that project, as well as for HDFS,
> is to get HDFS back to a healthy release cycle; not prolong or codify
> the current ad-hoc state of affairs.  Let's stop digging this hole.

-jakob
>
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:33 AM, M. C. Srivas <mcsrivas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [ Sorry if this is be-laboring the obvious ]
> >
> > There are two append solutions floating around, and they are incompatible
> > with each other. Thus, the two "branches" will forever remain
> incompatible
> > with each other, regardless of how they are numbered (0.22,  0.23,
>  0.20.3,
> > e.t.c.)
> >
> > Unless both are merged into one branch, and a switch provided to  "use
> > HDFS-200 append" or "use 0.22 append", we have effectively split Hadoop
> into
> > two.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Owen O'Malley <omalley@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Features are not release version tags.  If there is a security bug
> >> > found then we would have to release a new version of the append
> >> > version, and a round of severe trout slapping would result.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yeah, it isn't a perfect solution and it doesn't scale to a second tag,
> but
> >> the problem is that this is effectively a release branch between 0.20
> and
> >> 0.21. Of course I agree that any critical bugs would need to be fixed in
> >> the
> >> append branch as well as the 0.20 and 0.21 branches.
> >>
> >> If you want to stick to pure numbers and we want to leave ourselves a
> way
> >> to
> >> bugfix the 0.20 branch without append, we'd could use a version string
> like
> >> 0.20.100, etc. Not pretty, but it does preserve the numeric ordering and
> >> suggest a version jump.
> >>
> >> If I remember right, there were also protocol changes in the append
> branch,
> >> which was another reason we didn't want to put it directly into the 0.20
> >> branch.
> >>
> >> -- Owen
> >>
> >
>

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