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 saint.ack@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.161.48 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        b=ir4bNJVfSQImb+lI+iJGKTRlabBZcAIE3G/hYc4ZtWAiCQBrMWn9r5DrXkxtgCQtLb
         DhPXMiQdMWUFwpt3OGHoM0MOPAPY/mQski1n8QNdDamQV/iOpm5whS41RBySJXuoeVyj
         ZyODA6I4HbtkefwZ9GCMhxbvBijiEc0qlEYyI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: saint.ack@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <7277DB0B-9B56-4B57-A574-F2764C11FC10@Holsman.NET>
References: <AANLkTinMrd-acs=91xxw4MxHis8-RPSPtfhy7b4gu41O@mail.gmail.com>
	<7277DB0B-9B56-4B57-A574-F2764C11FC10@Holsman.NET>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:33:22 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTinMW7nvmapbkJwOGGNvaLNSrXSBr9c08JnBSHp4@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: Cut a hadoop-0.20.0-append release from the tip of
 branch-0.20-append branch?
From: Stack <stack@duboce.net>
To: general@hadoop.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Ian Holsman <hadoop@holsman.net> wrote:
> There are already 5 Hadoop 20.x releases out there, I don't think there is a need for another. (personal opinion, not a veto or speaking as the chair)
>

Are you counting other than Apache releases?  (I see only 4 here, two
of which probably should be removed:
http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/apache//hadoop/core/.)

> Is there a reason why we couldn't create a hadoop 0.20.3 release that has this patch inside of it, as well as other fixes that have been applied since 0.20.2 (~26 patches)? Would this be too much effort for you to RM?..
>

I'd like that but my sense is the general populace of hadoopers would
think the append/sync suite of patches destabilizing -- append/sync
has a long 'history' in hadoop -- and a violation of the general
principal that bug fixes only are added on a branch.


> I really don't want to come to a^h^h^h^hget out of the situation where we have multiple releases of 0.20 each with a unique feature.
>

Sure.  The notion has been broached before up on these lists -- e.g.
there was talk of a 0.20 Apache release that had security in it -- and
at the time folks seemed amenable.

Thanks for getting the discussion off the ground,
St.Ack