hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release plan for Hadoop 2.0.5
Date Sat, 11 May 2013 00:48:58 GMT
It would seem to a humble outsider that project formalism and procedure is
not the issue, instead that is expectations and impact on the outside
world. We hear that branch-2 is approaching stability, except when it
isn't, as evidenced by new downstream project unit test failures at each
"minor" release, with major new features going in because it's too
difficult to renumber. (??)

Would it work if a consensus can be found on renumbering upcoming 2.0.5 to
2.1.0? That would be a simple and effective concrete step toward resolving
the disagreements I observe. Those who have voted +1 on this
discussion+vote thread can stabilize 2.0.4, with additional fixes, RM a
2.0.x branch, describe it as stable, and meanwhile life goes on for
everyone else on 2.1.x branch? Downstream projects could be advised to
stick with 2.0.x for API and runtime stability until ready to make the leap
up to 2.1.x or successor?

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Chris Douglas <cdouglas@apache.org> wrote:

> It's unnecessary for you to ask permission to roll a release
> containing (or omitting) the features you want. This vote is redundant
> with the release vote; it's an unnecessary formalism in our bylaws. If
> you want to release 2.0.5 with the features you want and assemble
> other community members to help stabilize it in a 2.0.x series...
> great. Do that. If the release vote passes and others want to add more
> features, then they can roll a new series in 2.1. If the vote on your
> artifact fails, then forward your "stability" agenda directly by
> reviewing and contributing code. If a set of contributors wants to
> support your agenda then they'll work on it, but if the developers
> aren't there then neither is the project.

Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

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