hadoop-hdfs-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gangumalla, Uma" <uma.ganguma...@intel.com>
Subject Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release
Date Fri, 19 Feb 2016 01:33:10 GMT
Yes. I think starting 3.0 release with alpha is good idea. So it would get
some time to reach the beta or GA.

+1 for the plan.

For the compatibility purposes and as current stable versions, we should
continue 2.x releases anyway.

Thanks Andrew for starting the thread.

Regards,
Uma

On 2/18/16, 3:04 PM, "Andrew Wang" <andrew.wang@cloudera.com> wrote:

>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%20HD
>>FS%2C%20YARN%2C%20MAPREDUCE)%20and%20%22Target%20Version%2Fs%22%20%3D%20%
>>223.0.0%22%20and%20resolution%3D%22unresolved%22%20and%20%22Hadoop%20Flag
>>s%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
View raw message