hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Hammerbacher <ham...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop Security Release off Yahoo! patchset
Date Tue, 18 Jan 2011 04:30:29 GMT
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