hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aaron T. Myers" <...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Heads Up - hadoop-2.0.3 release
Date Wed, 19 Dec 2012 04:43:30 GMT
Hey Arun,

Awesome to see we're almost down to zero blockers. What are your thoughts
on removing the "alpha" label from the upcoming release? It seems to me
from the earlier discussion that most folks feel that we're at the point
where the interfaces are sufficiently stable to warrant it.

Aaron


On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Arun C Murthy <acm@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> Nearly there:
> http://s.apache.org/hadoop-2-blockers
>
> YARN-217 should be easy, I'd also like to get in YARN-253.
>
> Arun
>
> On Dec 19, 2012, at 1:15 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
>
> > Any news on how this is progressing? Some folks in this thread below
> > inquired about getting this release out around the New Year timeframe,
> > but it looks like YARN-117 subtasks have gone pretty quiet. We all
> > know how long lifecycle changes can take to get pushed through ;-)
> >
> > -Todd
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Steve Loughran
> > <steve.loughran@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I want to make some changes to the lifecycle of a yarn service (in a
> >> backwards compatible way).
> >>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-117
> >>
> >>
> >>   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
> >>   else
> >>   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
> >> ships
> >>
> >> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Todd Lipcon
> > Software Engineer, Cloudera
>
> --
> Arun C. Murthy
> Hortonworks Inc.
> http://hortonworks.com/
>
>
>

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