hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom White <...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Heads Up - hadoop-2.0.3 release
Date Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:41:07 GMT
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Siddharth Seth
<seth.siddharth@gmail.com> wrote:
> YARN-142/MAPREDUCE-4067 should ideally be fixed before we commit to API
> backward compatibility. Also, from the recent YARN meetup - there seemed to
> be a requirement to change the AM-RM protocol for container requests. In
> this case, I believe it's OK to not have all functionality implemented, as
> long as the protocol itself can represent the requirements.

I agree. Do you think we can make these changes before removing the
'alpha' label, i.e. in 2.0.3? If that's not possible for the container
requests change, then we could mark AMRMProtocol (or related classes)
as @Evolving. Another alternative would be to introduce a new

> However, as
> Bobby pointed out, given the current adoption by other projects -
> incompatible changes at this point can be problematic and needs to be
> figured out.

We have a mechanism for this already. If something is marked as
@Evolving it can change incompatibly between minor versions - e.g.
2.0.x to 2.1.0. If it is @Stable then it can only change on major
versions, e.g. 2.x.y to 3.0.0. Let's make sure we are happy with the
annotations - and willing to support them at the indicated level -
before we remove the 'alpha' label. Of course, we strive not to change
APIs without a very good reason, but if we do we should do so within
the guidelines so that users know what to expect.


> Thanks
> - Sid
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:22 AM, 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

View raw message