hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nigel Daley <nda...@mac.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop Security Release off Yahoo! patchset
Date Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:58:06 GMT
Eric, Arun, I'd like to explicitly clarify one aspect of this branch and what you mean by 'release'
-- it can have many meanings.

Are you asking to actually create an Apache release from this branch (binary & source)?
 Or, as I was assuming, simply commit all this code to this branch and leave it there without
a formal release so others can role their own binary if they wish?

Thanks,
Nige


On Jan 14, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Eric Baldeschwieler wrote:

> Yup. Letting people who want to contribute, do so a good meme!
> 
> A stable next release would be great. But orgs do sustaining on stable code releases
for a lot of very good reasons. 
> 
> A next Hadoop 21+ of this code quality is almost a year away in my opinion. 
> 
> ---
> E14 - via iPhone
> 
> On Jan 14, 2011, at 10:05 AM, "Jakob Homan" <jghoman@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> On another thread discussing hadoop-0.20-append as a separate branch, most people
agreed that new features shouldn't be added to 0.20, now we have a major feature and we are
all gung ho for it..
>> 
>> Not all are.  I'm against it for the all the same reasons I was
>> against 20 append.  This is also being used as a wedge to get the
>> append work in as .200.  My position is that every iota effort of
>> releasing another 20 branch is an iota not spent on getting us a
>> kick-ass 22.  20 was great, and we had a lot of wonderful times
>> together, but it's time to move on and see other releases.
>> 
>> But, this is a volunteer effort, and if others want to put the effort
>> in, they're free to do so.
>> -jg
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Nigel Daley <ndaley@mac.com> wrote:
>>> Yup, I'll say it again.  The process ain't perfect but it's good enough IMO.
Thank you Yahoo! for your contribution.
>>> 
>>> Clearly these patch will need review before commit when going into trunk.
>>> 
>>> Let's move on to 0.22.
>>> 
>>> Nige
>>> 
>>> On Jan 14, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I tend to second most of Ian's points here.
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 06:14, Ian Holsman <hadoop@holsman.net> wrote:
>>>>> (with my Apache hat on)
>>>>> I'm -0.5 on doing this as one big mega-patch and not including append
(as opposed to a series of smaller patches).
>>>> 
>>>> #1: we are creating a precedent of a "brain-dump" here. Although, it
>>>> isn't the first one in the history of OSS. Infamous Apple "patch" to
>>>> OpenBSD is another one ;)
>>>> 
>>>> #2: How to spell 'back door' any one?
>>>> 
>>>> #5: "almost 10 internal releases" Arun has mentioned above might be,
>>>> perhaps, considered as a great quality control effort. Also, not to
>>>> mention virtual impossibility to create a test plan to validate a
>>>> giant features patch.
>>>> 
>>>>> BTW, I'd like to point out a discrepancy here:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On another thread discussing hadoop-0.20-append as a separate branch,
most people agreed that new features shouldn't be added to 0.20, now we have a major feature
and we are all gung ho for it..
>>>> 
>>>> And this ^^^
>>>> 
>>>> But, hey I guess it's totally worth it!
>>>> Cos
>>>> 
>>>>> --Ian
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jan 14, 2011, at 2:21 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Stack wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> (Man, it was looking good there for a second when 0.20.100 was
about
>>>>>>> security+append!)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Good luck w/ the release Arun.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We might be following your 0.20.100 with a 0.20.200 append.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Super!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Arun
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 


Mime
View raw message