hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nigel Daley <nda...@mac.com>
Subject Re: Update on 0.22
Date Sun, 12 Jun 2011 22:14:19 GMT
Sorry I missed this thread earlier. 

I'm not going to worry about the water under the bridge at this point, but going forward I
would like to only include those issues marked as blocker. If a new issue crops up I will
be taking a closer look at it and may push back. 

We've got less than 10 issues left to go :-)

Cheers,
Nige

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:31 AM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Konstantin Shvachko
> <shv.hadoop@gmail.com>wrote:
> 
>> I propose just to make them blockers before committing to attract attention
>> of the release manager and get his approval. Imho, even small changes, like
>> HDFS-1954 are blockers, because a vague UI message is bug and bugs are
>> blockers.
>> 
> 
> Bugs are blockers? Then we'll never release!
> 
> Let's hear from Nigel what he thinks. It's his branch, if he's upset about
> the way it's being handled, he can deal with it as he sees fit.
> 
> -Todd
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
>>> <shv.hadoop@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I can see them well.
>>>> I think Suresh's point is that non-blockers are going into 0.22.
>>>> Nigel, do you have full control over it?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Of course it's up to Nigel to decide, but here's my personal opinion:
>>> 
>>> One of the reasons we had a lot of divergence (read: external
>>> branches/forks/whatever) off of 0.20 is that the commit rules on the
>> branch
>>> were held pretty strictly. So, if you wanted a non-critical bug fix or a
>>> small improvement, the only option was to do such things on an external
>>> fork. 0.20 was branched in December '08 and not released until mid April
>>> '09. In 4 months a fair number of bug fixes and small improvements go in.
>>> 0.22 has been around even longer. If we were to keep it to *only*
>> blockers,
>>> then again it would be a fairly useless release due to the number of
>>> non-blocker bugs.
>>> 
>>> Clearly there's a balance and a judgment call when moving things back to
>> a
>>> branch. But at this point I'd consider small improvements and pretty much
>>> any bug fix to be reasonable, so long as it doesn't involve major
>> reworking
>>> of components. Nigel: if this assumption doesn't jive (ha ha, get it?)
>> with
>>> what you're thinking, please let me know :)
>>> 
>>> -Todd
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Eric Baldeschwieler <
>>> eric14@yahoo-inc.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> makes sense to me, but it might be good to work to make these
>> decisions
>>>>> visible so folks can understand what is happening.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jun 1, 2011, at 1:46 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I see that there are several non blockers being promoted to 0.22
>>> from
>>>>> trunk.
>>>>>>> From my understanding, any non blocker change to 0.22 should
be
>>>> approved
>>>>> by
>>>>>>> vote. Is this correct?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> No, the Release Manager has full control over what goes into a
>>> release.
>>>>> The PMC votes on it once there is a release candidate.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- Owen
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Todd Lipcon
>>> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera

Mime
View raw message