hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Holsman <had...@holsman.net>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop Security Release off Yahoo! patchset
Date Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:26:28 GMT
So what is the plan with 20.3 that Owen volunteered to RM? 
Should we do that, or just integrate the security code with that and call it 20.x?

---
Ian Holsman - 703 879-3128

I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free -- Michelangelo

On 12/01/2011, at 6:02 PM, Eli Collins <eli@cloudera.com> wrote:

> +1 on 0.20.x   (where x is a J > 3)
> 
> Nigel - could we make all the patches in this branch that have not
> been committed up stream (that need to be) blockers for 22?   This way
> 22 is not a regression against 0.20.x.
> 
> Thanks,
> Eli
> 
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Nigel Daley <ndaley@mac.com> wrote:
>> +1 for 0.20.x, where x >= 100.  I agree that the 1.0 moniker would involve more
discussion.
>> 
>> Will this be a jumbo patch attached to a Jira and then committed to the branch? 
Just curious.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Nige
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 12, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm willing to discuss any and all options, for a very short period.
>>> 
>>> Technically you have a reasonable point, Doug has suggested this in the past
too. If everyone agrees, fine; if not, I'm do not want hung up on a release number. I just
*do not* want a controversy.
>>> 
>>> As I mentioned, I'm looking to finish this up in a couple of weeks; so, I could
do without a long discussion on the on the critical path.
>>> 
>>> I'm happy to go with a reasonable compromise, if not, hadoop-0.20.100 is what
I'm priming for.
>>> 
>>> Heck, if Stack wants to call the append release (not sure how far ahead he is)
as hadoop-0.20.100, I'm willing to call this hadoop-0.20.200.
>>> 
>>> All I care about is having a distinct release number from 0.20.2 (our last stable
release). Again, I just want to get a release into the hands of our users. Please, let's resolve
this quickly. Please.
>>> 
>>> Arun
>>> 
>>> On Jan 12, 2011, at 1:10 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 11, 2011, at 9:09 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I'm open to suggestions - how about something like 20.100 to show
>>>>> that it's a big jump? Anything else?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Although I'm not wild about any of the potential release names, this
>>>> patch set is neither a subset or superset of the 0.21 or 0.22
>>>> branches. Given that, I think that a new major release number makes
>>>> the most sense. It is also relatively likely that additional minor
>>>> releases will be made off of this branch while 0.22 is stabilizing.
>>>> We've talked about declaring 0.20 a 1.0 for a long time and this feels
>>>> like backing into the decision, but technically, I believe it to be
>>>> the right name for such a release.
>>>> 
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> 
>>>> -- Owen
>>> 
>> 
>> 

Mime
View raw message