hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Loughran <steve.lough...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Heads Up - hadoop-2.0.3 release
Date Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:41:23 GMT
I want to make some changes to the lifecycle of a yarn service (in a
backwards compatible way).


   1. formal state machine model with stop state idempotent and entry-able
   from any state
   2. waiting/blocked state a service can enter when waiting for something
   3. an alternate base class that does the state model checks before
   executing any state change functions -currently its done at
   end-of-operation in the super() calls.
   4. gradual move of services to the stricter base class.

With a new base class nothing will break (as the move can be done
case-by-case, leaving the heavily subclassed ones alone); the state model
extensions & formalisation would be visible but not used.

I don't want to hold anything up, because I need more testing of things
before this is ready for review. I just want to get the fixes in before it

On 19 November 2012 16:22, Robert Evans <evans@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> I am OK with removing the alpha assuming that we think that the APIs are
> stable enough that we are willing to truly start maintaining backwards
> compatibility on them within 2.X. From what I have seen I think that they
> are fairly stable and I think there is enough adoption by other projects
> right now that breaking backwards compatibility would be problematic.
> --Bobby Evans
> On 11/16/12 11:34 PM, "Stack" <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Aaron T. Myers <atm@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Arun,
> >>
> >> Given that the 2.0.3 release is intended to reflect the growing
> >>stability
> >> of YARN, and the QJM work will be included in 2.0.3 which provides a
> >> complete HDFS HA solution, I think it's time we consider removing the
> >> "-alpha" label from the release version. My preference would be to
> >>remove
> >> the label entirely, but we could also perhaps call it "-beta" or
> >>something.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >
> >I think it fine after two minor releases undoing the '-alpha' suffix.
> >
> >If folks insist we next go to '-beta', I'd hope we'd travel all
> >remaining 22 letters of the greek alphabet before we 2.0.x.
> >
> >St.Ack

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message