hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Douglas <cdoug...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Naming of Hadoop releases
Date Mon, 19 Mar 2012 23:28:38 GMT
-1. I agree with Todd; we tried this policy before and the project
didn't produce a usable release for two years. Its benefits are
fiction and its harm is documented.

However 0.22 is (or isn't) released, no general policy is required and
nobody should waste their time trying to define one. Releases-
including versions- are by majority vote. Either the developers of the
0.22 series convince most of the PMC that the release series warrants
a major version, they elect to continue development on the 0.22
series, or they fork the code and create a new project. Those are
always the only outcomes and the reasoning will be ad hoc by
definition.

My opinion: version numbers are cheap. As long as 0.22 has
contributors interested in pursuing that line of development,
reserving a series for that work to be released is not unreasonable.
Confining it to 0.22.xxx presumes it will fail, while a major version
should give its maintainers sufficient flexibility to define
compatibility, etc. -C

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Doug Cutting <cutting@apache.org> wrote:
> On 03/19/2012 02:47 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>> This is against the Apache Hadoop release policy on major releases i.e. only features
deprecated for at least one release can be removed.
>
> In many case the reason this happened was that features were backported
> from trunk to 0.20 but not to 0.22.  In other words, its no fault of the
> folks who were working on branch 0.22.  So a related policy we might add
> to prevent such situations in the future might be that if you backport
> something from branch n to n-2 then you ought to also be required to
> backport it to branch n-1 and in general to all intervening branches.
> Does that seem sensible?
>
> Doug

Mime
View raw message