Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hadoop-hdfs-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-hdfs-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2096E106B0 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:13:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 6704 invoked by uid 500); 13 Nov 2013 18:12:26 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-hdfs-dev-archive@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 6026 invoked by uid 500); 13 Nov 2013 18:11:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact hdfs-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 5207 invoked by uid 99); 13 Nov 2013 18:11:51 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:11:51 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_REMOTE_IMAGE X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of acm@hortonworks.com designates 209.85.223.180 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.223.180] (HELO mail-ie0-f180.google.com) (209.85.223.180) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:11:47 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id qd12so1078203ieb.11 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:11:26 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :references:to:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=dIs8ZjhO4YqT14n1I6ma/V+LNM7ZDA0RXHb84w9Q//I=; b=Z0P/Pv2O4jAvJ7iAUl9ssOen+Nry5CYnVOsdLsMVUBsIRrmTqIjWCJVDHzS+K9pZN8 iqdraX4wQZ9w1RiTztz5FHKtBYQys2n5bQD0X9lE2G9z3PclS+DJpe04Oq7Ylo0aJTVy AqQhbNKn3h6sWZSiBsrzvE82EAtXhkROqhzF4n8omHtbhMBkGEha4SgVThm/HK6rNom8 CZfWmIm1s5cWQq0S8xa33OH4OFjK04JYZmGtdFmQ02NVi6LN2TQJ4f1TDRPHBl5g+KQl N8SHIcRbxsaJjI97hbf0+KdLcdhWSy25sA129Zv1XNgfWbegVbY8MpH0fpXTh+86HOHs bDkg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnDp+y/WAbeyvFeuNs8AGi5niaDkQ3cXnp0wGOb6bZXwyHBwQFbnrbA1DodQTAXdN0J0R/2ZNpMVwi027OyoFnCRwCDkcKYMSZJEc6g+pQHWADLxtM= X-Received: by 10.50.154.10 with SMTP id vk10mr19523551igb.1.1384366286356; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:11:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.154.128] ([198.203.175.254]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p14sm31444806igr.7.2013.11.13.10.11.24 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:11:25 -0800 (PST) From: Arun C Murthy Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Subject: Re: Next releases Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:11:24 -0600 References:

To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org, "common-dev@hadoop.apache.org" , "mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org" , "yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org" In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B33567C6-C47E-428F-9F55-ACFD0A02DA2E" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --Apple-Mail=_B33567C6-C47E-428F-9F55-ACFD0A02DA2E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Nov 12, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Colin McCabe wrote: > >> To be honest, I'm not aware of anything in 2.2.1 that shouldn't be >> there. However, I have only been following the HDFS and common side >> of things so I may not have the full picture. Arun, can you give a >> specific example of something you'd like to "blow away"? There are bunch of issues in YARN/MapReduce which clearly aren't *critical*, similarly in HDFS a cursory glance showed up some *enhancements*/*improvements* in CHANGES.txt which aren't necessary for a patch release, plus things like: HADOOP-9623 Update jets3t dependency to 0.9.0 Having said that, the HDFS devs know their code the best. > I agree with Colin. If we've been backporting things into a patch release > (third version component) which don't belong, we should explicitly call out > those patches, so we can learn from our mistakes and have a discussion > about what belongs. Good point. Here is a straw man proposal: ---- A patch (third version) release should only include *blocker* bugs which are critical from an operational, security or data-integrity issues. This way, we can ensure that a minor series release (2.2.x or 2.3.x or 2.4.x) is always release-able, and more importantly, deploy-able at any point in time. ---- Sandy did bring up a related point about timing of releases and the urge for everyone to cram features/fixes into a dot release. So, we could remedy that situation by doing a release every 4-6 weeks (2.3, 2.4 etc.) and keep the patch releases limited to blocker bugs. Thoughts? thanks, Arun -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. --Apple-Mail=_B33567C6-C47E-428F-9F55-ACFD0A02DA2E--