hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Arun C Murthy <...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: Heads Up - hadoop-2.0.3 release
Date Tue, 04 Dec 2012 14:09:15 GMT
Lohit,

 There are some outstanding blockers and I'm still awaiting the QJM merge.
 
 Feel free to watch the blocker list:
 http://s.apache.org/e1J

Arun

On Dec 3, 2012, at 10:02 AM, lohit wrote:

> Hello Hadoop Release managers,
> Any update on this?
> 
> Thanks,
> Lohit
> 
> 2012/11/20 Tom White <tom@cloudera.com>
> 
>> 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
>> interface.
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Tom
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Have a Nice Day!
> Lohit

--
Arun C. Murthy
Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/



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