hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Arun C Murthy <...@yahoo-inc.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop Security Release off Yahoo! patchset
Date Tue, 18 Jan 2011 05:56:43 GMT
Bringing 'organizations' into this discussion is very disingenuous.

Doug, credit to him, was the first person to propose this release:
http://www.mail-archive.com/general@hadoop.apache.org/msg01427.html

I have supported the append-release:
http://www.mail-archive.com/general@hadoop.apache.org/msg02584.html

So, stop coloring arguments in this manner.

Arun


On Jan 17, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Jeff Hammerbacher wrote:

> Hey,
>
> We had this exact same discussion about the 0.20-append branch a few  
> weeks
> ago. A few organizations have tested that code at scale and feel  
> strongly
> that it's stable. We decided not to release it because it does not  
> meet the
> Apache guidelines for a release. The Apache process has its pros and  
> cons;
> we've all accepted them, so the community moved on and focused its  
> energy on
> the 0.22 release.
>
> A few weeks later, we now have another organization claiming that  
> their
> 0.20-based branch is tested at scale and should be released. It's  
> claimed
> that 0.20.100 will be "more stable, performant and more useful to our
> users"; the same can be said of the 0.20-append branch. Neither  
> branch,
> however, is a bugfix release and thus does not meet the Apache  
> guidelines
> for a release. That's too bad; we should work to avoid this  
> situation again
> in the future, but let's not try to change the rules because we did  
> a poor
> job in the past of getting our work released via Apache.
>
> As Nigel mentions, and as was done with 0.20-append, I would fully  
> support a
> "a code-only drop into a branch w/ no formal Apache release". That's  
> fully
> compliant with the Apache process.
>
> All of these discussions will be moot once we get 0.22 out the door  
> and stop
> arguing over which organization has the most magical 0.20-based  
> bits. I'm
> looking forward to seeing all of the Apache Hadoop contributors  
> working full
> time on that release process once these bits are committed to the  
> 0.20.100
> branch.
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff
>
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Todd Papaioannou <toddp@yahoo- 
> inc.com>wrote:
>
>> That's only true if you plan to pull forward the changes wholesale  
>> into
>> .21, .22 and beyond. And that is not what is being proposed.
>>
>> If the plan is to just land an updated and more stable version of . 
>> 20 that
>> is completely backwards compatible, then this can be done within  
>> that code
>> line without any impact to the end users. Any changes that the  
>> community
>> wish to pull forward can be identified, isolated and reviewed per  
>> the normal
>> process. Or they can remain in the .20.100 release for eternity,  
>> without any
>> impact on the future.
>>
>> Either way, the .20 release will be more stable, performant and  
>> more useful
>> to our users, and the community at large can focus on releasing . 
>> 22, which
>> we all believe is the right goal.
>>
>> ToddP
>>
>> From: Doug Cutting <cutting@apache.org<mailto:cutting@apache.org>>
>> Reply-To:  
>> "general@hadoop.apache.org<mailto:general@hadoop.apache.org>" <
>> general@hadoop.apache.org<mailto:general@hadoop.apache.org>>
>> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:49:51 -0800
>> To: "general@hadoop.apache.org<mailto:general@hadoop.apache.org>" <
>> general@hadoop.apache.org<mailto:general@hadoop.apache.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop Security Release off Yahoo! patchset
>>
>>
>> Backwards compatibility has been a goal, so
>> with luck we will not ID regressions.
>>
>> My point was that, in addition to back-compatibility with prior 0.20
>> releases, we must also consider the forward-compatibility of each  
>> change
>> with 0.21, 0.22 and trunk.
>>


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