hadoop-hdfs-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Zhe Zhang <zhezh...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release
Date Mon, 22 Feb 2016 21:26:21 GMT
Thanks Andrew for driving the effort!

+1 (non-binding) on starting the 3.0 release process now with 3.0 as an
alpha.

I wanted to echo Andrew's point that backporting EC to branch-2 is a lot of
work. Considering that no concrete backporting plan has been proposed, it
seems quite uncertain whether / when it can be released in 2.9. I think we
should rather concentrate our EC dev efforts to harden key features under
the follow-on umbrella HDFS-8031 and make it solid for a 3.0 release.

Sincerely,
Zhe

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 9:25 AM Colin P. McCabe <cmccabe@apache.org> wrote:

> +1 for a release of 3.0.  There are a lot of significant,
> compatibility-breaking, but necessary changes in this release... we've
> touched on some of them in this thread.
>
> +1 for a parallel release of 2.8 as well.  I think we are pretty close
> to this, barring a dozen or so blockers.
>
> best,
> Colin
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Steve Loughran <stevel@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 20 Feb 2016, at 15:34, Junping Du <jdu@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Shall we consolidate effort for 2.8.0 and 3.0.0? It doesn't sounds
> reasonable to have two alpha releases to go in parallel. Is EC feature the
> main motivation of releasing hadoop 3 here? If so, I don't understand why
> this feature cannot land on 2.8.x or 2.9.x as an alpha feature.
> >
> >
> >
> >> If we release 3.0 in a month like plan proposed below, it means we will
> have 4 active releases going in parallel - two alpha releases (2.8 and 3.0)
> and two stable releases (2.6.x and 2.7.x). It brings a lot of challenges in
> issues tracking and patch committing, not even mention the tremendous
> effort of release verification and voting.
> >> I would like to propose to wait 2.8 release become stable (may be 2nd
> release in 2.8 branch cause first release is alpha due to discussion in
> another email thread), then we can move to 3.0 as the only alpha release.
> In the meantime, we can bring more significant features (like ATS v2, etc.)
> to trunk and consolidate stable releases in 2.6.x and 2.7.x. I believe that
> make life easier. :)
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >
> > 2.8.0 is relatively close to shipping. I say relatively as I'm doing
> some work with ATS 1.5 downstream and I'd like to make sure all that works.
> There's also a large collection of S3 and swift patches needing attention
> from any reviewers with time and credentials.
> >
> > 3.x is going to take multiple iterations to stabilise, and with more
> changes, more significant a rollout. I'd also like to do a complete update
> of all the dependencies before a final release, so we can have less
> pressure to upgrade for a while, and get Sean's classloader patch in so
> it's slightly less visible.
> >
> > That means 3.0 is going to be an alpha release, not final.
> >
> > one thing that could be shared is any build.xml automation of the
> release process, to at least take away most of the manual steps in the
> process, to have something more repeatable.
> >
> > -steve
> >
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Junping
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: Yongjun Zhang <yzhang@cloudera.com>
> >> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:05 PM
> >> To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> >> Cc: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org;
> yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release
> >>
> >> Thanks Andrew for initiating the effort!
> >>
> >> +1 on pushing 3.x with extended alpha cycle, and continuing the more
> stable
> >> 2.x releases.
> >>
> >> --Yongjun
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Andrew Wang <andrew.wang@cloudera.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Kai,
> >>>
> >>> Sure, I'm open to it. It's a new major release, so we're allowed to
> make
> >>> these kinds of big changes. The idea behind the extended alpha cycle is
> >>> that downstreams can give us feedback. This way if we do anything too
> >>> radical, we can address it in the next alpha and have downstreams
> re-test.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Andrew
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Zheng, Kai <kai.zheng@intel.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks Andrew for driving this. Wonder if it's a good chance for
> >>>> HADOOP-12579 (Deprecate and remove WriteableRPCEngine) to be in. Note
> >>> it's
> >>>> not an incompatible change, but feel better to be done in the major
> >>> release.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Kai
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Andrew Wang [mailto:andrew.wang@cloudera.com]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 7:04 AM
> >>>> To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org; Kihwal Lee <kihwal@yahoo-inc.com>
> >>>> Cc: mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org; common-dev@hadoop.apache.org;
> >>>> yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Kihwal,
> >>>>
> >>>> I think there's still value in continuing the 2.x releases. 3.x comes
> >>> with
> >>>> the incompatible bump to a JDK8 runtime, and also the fact that 3.x
> won't
> >>>> be beta or GA for some number of months. In the meanwhile, it'd be
> good
> >>> to
> >>>> keep putting out regular, stable 2.x releases.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>> Andrew
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Kihwal Lee
> <kihwal@yahoo-inc.com.invalid
> >>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Moving Hadoop 3 forward sounds fine. If EC is one of the main
> >>>>> motivations, are we getting rid of branch-2.8?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Kihwal
> >>>>>
> >>>>>      From: Andrew Wang <andrew.wang@cloudera.com>
> >>>>> To: "common-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <common-dev@hadoop.apache.org>
> >>>>> Cc: "yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org>;
"
> >>>>> mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org>;
> >>>>> hdfs-dev <hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org>
> >>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 4:35 PM
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Reviving this thread. I've seen renewed interest in a trunk release
> >>>>> since HDFS erasure coding has not yet made it to branch-2. Along
with
> >>>>> JDK8, the shell script rewrite, and many other improvements, I think
> >>>>> it's time to revisit Hadoop 3.0 release plans.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My overall plan is still the same as in my original email: a series
> of
> >>>>> regular alpha releases leading up to beta and GA. Alpha releases
make
> >>>>> it easier for downstreams to integrate with our code, and making
them
> >>>>> regular means features can be included when they are ready.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I know there are some incompatible changes waiting in the wings
(i.e.
> >>>>> HDFS-6984 making FileStatus a PB rather than Writable, some of
> >>>>> HADOOP-9991 bumping dependency versions) that would be good to get
> in.
> >>>>> If you have changes like this, please set the target version to
3.0.0
> >>>>> and mark them "Incompatible". We can use this JIRA query to track:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20in%20(HADOOP%2C%2
> >>>>>
> 0HDFS%2C%20YARN%2C%20MAPREDUCE)%20and%20%22Target%20Version%2Fs%22%20%
> >>>>>
> 3D%20%223.0.0%22%20and%20resolution%3D%22unresolved%22%20and%20%22Hado
> >>>>> op%20Flags%22%3D%22Incompatible%20change%22%20order%20by%20priority
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There's some release-related stuff that needs to be sorted out
> >>>>> (namely, the new CHANGES.txt and release note generation from Yetus),
> >>>>> but I'd tentatively like to roll the first alpha a month out, so
> third
> >>>>> week of March.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best,
> >>>>> Andrew
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Raymie Stata <rstata@altiscale.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Avoiding the use of JDK8 language features (and, presumably,
APIs)
> >>>>>> means you've abandoned #1, i.e., you haven't (really) bumped
the JDK
> >>>>>> source version to JDK8.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Also, note that releasing from trunk is a way of achieving #3,
it's
> >>>>>> not a way of abandoning it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Andrew Wang
> >>>>>> <andrew.wang@cloudera.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi Raymie,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Konst proposed just releasing off of trunk rather than cutting
a
> >>>>>> branch-2,
> >>>>>>> and there was general agreement there. So, consider #3 abandoned.
> >>>>>>> 1&2
> >>>>> can
> >>>>>>> be achieved at the same time, we just need to avoid using
JDK8
> >>>>>>> language features in trunk so things can be backported.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>> Andrew
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Raymie Stata
> >>>>>>> <rstata@altiscale.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In this (and the related threads), I see the following
three
> >>>>>> requirements:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1. "Bump the source JDK version to JDK8" (ie, drop JDK7
support).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2. "We'll still be releasing 2.x releases for a while,
with
> >>>>>>>> similar feature sets as 3.x."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 3. Avoid the "risk of split-brain behavior" by "minimize
> >>>>>>>> backporting headaches. Pulling trunk > branch-2 >
branch-2.x is
> >>>> already tedious.
> >>>>>>>> Adding a branch-3, branch-3.x would be obnoxious."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> These three cannot be achieved at the same time.  Which
do we
> >>>> abandon?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:45 PM, sanjay Radia
> >>>>>>>> <sanjayosrc@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Mar 5, 2015, at 3:21 PM, Siddharth Seth <sseth@apache.org>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 2) Simplification of configs - potentially separating
client
> >>>>>>>>>> side
> >>>>>>>> configs
> >>>>>>>>>> and those used by daemons. This is another source
of perpetual
> >>>>>> confusion
> >>>>>>>>>> for users.
> >>>>>>>>> + 1 on this.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> sanjay
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

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