Mailing-List: contact general-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@hadoop.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of tom.e.white@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.82.48 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=eG0lb4tVoUI3dKz2c+rThs524vPfoEqmKdMkLe+Ge6OkH2x5bWccYKua9E2ss+KO9X
         7BwaSuk3SqVzobncrth5APth427zUcRU0iv0UXa1xj2MbywQCnvt+pL/0N5wtd3YF6iQ
         MH+xQ0vqj/as+Z9zlsyFOi2X12TVQcUVujsJs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin9ZdZAVZSvE6yeSWHJKtfON0YiM5Gr55oLD62P@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27F4E872-C226-4386-9148-077F0044B6E9@Holsman.net>
 <05ED6FF7-6236-47F4-B5DD-8E927971C72D@apache.org>
 <39694716-7EF6-41B8-8862-D2DE03A4560C@Holsman.NET>
 <9FC0DEC0-524A-4A35-88A6-17473DD74929@apache.org>
 <C9F82B37-7397-46D8-9788-679380749C1B@Holsman.NET>
 <AANLkTin9ZdZAVZSvE6yeSWHJKtfON0YiM5Gr55oLD62P@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom White <tom.e.white@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 09:17:30 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=Ne1oOQ8ioqJsXxX=bU43YA4DZTbbNmNjvY1hM@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Plans for the 0.22 Release
To: general@hadoop.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
<shv.hadoop@gmail.com> wrote:
> Owen, Doug, Tom
>
> Could you please formulate and reply to this email separately
> =A0 =A0 what would be an *ACCEPTABLE *resolution of
> =A0 =A0 HADOOP-6685 for *YOU *to move *0.22* forward.
> Just trying to get something to work with to get us beyond the stagnation
> point.
>
> It could be "I want this patch in/out as is, final answer". Then we are
> stuck.
> But at least we will know there is no resolution to hope for anymore.
> And we have to find other ways based on that fact.
>
> It could be a zero-option plan - remove dependencies both for Avro and
> ProtocolBuffers out into libraries, similar to schedulers.
> Or something else.
> Let's see if there is any common ground. If there is
> we can further talk about implementation and in the mean time declare
> the 0.22 freeze contingent on the completion of H-6685.

I don't personally see HADOOP-6685 as a blocker for a 0.22 release,
since there is a lot of value in there already that has not been
released yet, such as security. However, to get HADOOP-6685 resolved,
from my point of view the main thing to sort out are the modularity
concerns that I and others have raised, so that serializations are
pluggable and don't add potentially incompatible libraries onto the
user's classpath.

Thanks,
Tom

>
> Thanks,
> --Konstantin
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Ian Holsman <hadoop@holsman.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 17, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>>
>> >> Everyone who has discussed this patch has said it isn't critical to
>> hadoop, and It's holding up everything else 0.22 is going to bring.
>> >
>> > I disagree that it isn't critical to Hadoop, but I'm not holding up 0.=
22.
>> I'm just not volunteering to spend my time working on it, if it doesn't =
have
>> the features that I think it needs.
>> >
>> > -- Owen
>> >
>>
>> That's a fair point.. and this is a volunteer effort.
>> Do we have anybody else who is willing to be the release manager for 22
>> with 6685?
>>
>>
>