hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric Sammer <esam...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Release compatibility was Re: [VOTE] Release candidate 0.20.203.0-rc1
Date Sat, 07 May 2011 23:50:17 GMT
Milind:

Thanks for the pointer. I remember this thread. I guess my question
was unrelated to the specific release and more about the general mode
of development under normal release circumstances (ie. do we permit
backward incompatible changes between 0.22.0 and 0.22.1 or is this
something we've allowed just for the 203 release?).

I think it's important to be clear about what the MO is so end users
can plan upgrades appropriately.

Thanks!
Sammer

On May 6, 2011, at 11:52 PM, Milind Bhandarkar <mbhandarkar@linkedin.com> wrote:

> [I am not on PMC, but seeing that PMC may be busy with other issues, I
> will try to answer your questions.]
>
> Eric,
>
> I think the thread
> "http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-general/201101.mbox/%3C18C
> 5C999-4680-4684-BC55-A430C40FD746@yahoo-inc.com%3E" will answer your
> questions. Here is the timeline as I see it:
>
> 1. Arun proposes to create a release from the security patchset. Says Doug
> has proposed this earlier
> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-general/201004.mbox/%3C4BD
> 1DFEA.5020908@apache.org%3E April 23, 2010) ("This has been proposed
> earlier by Doug and did not get far due to concerns about the effect this
> would have on development on trunk.") (August 24, 2010)
>
> 2. Lots of +1s, between August 24 to August 30 2010. One particular
> comment is from Tom White: "I think it would be good to have a shared 0.20
> Apache security branch.
> Since security isn't in 0.21, and the 0.22 release is a some way off
> as you mention, this would be useful for folks who want the security
> features sooner (and want to use an Apache release)."
>
> 3. Arun volunteers to create a release (August 30, 2010)
>
> 4. Doug reminds Arun. (October 15, 2010)
>
> 5. Arun apologizes for not creating a branch because he was busy, because
> he had a baby. (January 11, 2011)
>
> 6. Lots of discussion about what to call it (the release, not the baby,
> although I had a good laugh at Patrick Angeles's email: "You're gonna call
> your kid 20.100?" ;-).
>
> 7. Arun proposes to call it 0.20.100: "I'm open to suggestions - how about
> something like 20.100 to show that it's a big jump? Anything else?" Jan
> 12, 2011
>
> 8. Among others, Eli says: "+1 on 0.20.x   (where x is a J > 3)" on Jan
> 12, 2011.
>
> So, as you can see, even if this release is called 0.20.x, the community
> agreed that these are valuable patches to have, and despite backward
> incompatibility, still have them in minor release.
>
> - milind
>
> --
> Milind Bhandarkar
> mbhandarkar@linkedin.com
> +1-650-776-3167
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5/6/11 11:14 PM, "Eric Sammer" <esammer@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 6, 2011, at 4:53 AM, Steve Loughran <stevel@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I understand Eli's concerns that putting stuff in there that hasn't gone
>> into trunk yet is danger. However, as the team makes no guarantees of 100%
>> compatibility between releases, I don't think it's critical. It's just
>> something that needs to be addressed -which can be done after this release
>> has shipped.
>>
>>
>> I was under the impression that the community has been extremely strict
>> about compatibility between minor version bumps in the past. I though
>> there
>> were specific guarantees and that was one of the reasons certain behaviors
>> have persisted so long.
>>
>> Does this mean API changes can be made in minor releases and it can be
>> made
>> backward compatible in future releases? That seems very, very counter to
>> various conversations that have happened in the past. I'm of the mind that
>> we should continue to promise what we've always promised and if that's
>> changing, let's make with the refactoring party!
>>
>> Can some PMC'ers clarify this one for me?
>>
>> TIA.
>> Sammer
>>
>>
>>
>> -Steve
>

Mime
View raw message