hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Milind Bhandarkar <mbhandar...@linkedin.com>
Subject Re: Release compatibility was Re: [VOTE] Release candidate 0.20.203.0-rc1
Date Sat, 07 May 2011 06:55:05 GMT
[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