hadoop-hdfs-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Branches and versions for Hadoop 3
Date Tue, 29 Aug 2017 18:25:08 GMT
Hi Wangda,

I'll cut two branches: branch-3.0 (3.0.0-SNAPSHOT) and branch-3.0.0-beta1
(3.0.0-beta1-SNAPSHOT). This way we can merge GA features to branch-3.0 but
not branch-3.0.0-beta1.

Best,
Andrew

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Wangda Tan <wheeleast@gmail.com> wrote:

> Vrushali,
>
> Sure we can wait TSv2 merged before merge resource profile branch.
>
> Andrew,
>
> My understanding is you're going to cut branch-3.0 for 3.0-beta1, and the
> same branch (branch-3.0) will be used for 3.0-GA as well. So my question
> is, there're several features (TSv2, resource profile, YARN-5734) are
> targeted to merge to 3.0-GA but not 3.0-beta1, which branch we should
> commit to, and when we can commit? Also, similar to 3.0.0-alpha1 to 4, you
> will cut branch-3.0.0-beta1, correct?
>
> Thanks,
> Wangda
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Andrew Wang <andrew.wang@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sure. Ping me when the TSv2 goes in, and I can take care of branching.
>>
>> We're still waiting on the native services and S3Guard merges, but I
>> don't want to hold branching to the last minute.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Vrushali C <vrushalic2016@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>> As Rohith mentioned, if you are good with it, from the TSv2 side, we are
>>> ready to go for merge tonight itself (Pacific time)  right after the voting
>>> period ends. Varun Saxena has been diligently rebasing up until now so most
>>> likely our merge should be reasonably straightforward.
>>>
>>> @Wangda: your resource profile vote ends tomorrow, could we please
>>> coordinate our merges?
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> Vrushali
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Rohith Sharma K S <
>>> rohithsharmaks@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29 August 2017 at 06:24, Andrew Wang <andrew.wang@cloudera.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > So far I've seen no -1's to the branching proposal, so I plan to
>>>> execute
>>>> > this tomorrow unless there's further feedback.
>>>> >
>>>> For on going branch merge threads i.e TSv2, voting will be closing
>>>> tomorrow. Does it end up in merging into trunk(3.1.0-SNAPSHOT) and
>>>> branch-3.0(3.0.0-beta1-SNAPSHOT) ? If so, would you be able to wait for
>>>> couple of more days before creating branch-3.0 so that TSv2 branch merge
>>>> would be done directly to trunk?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Regarding the above discussion, I think Jason and I have essentially
>>>> the
>>>> > same opinion.
>>>> >
>>>> > I hope that keeping trunk a release branch means a higher bar for
>>>> merges
>>>> > and code review in general. In the past, I've seen some patches
>>>> committed
>>>> > to trunk-only as a way of passing responsibility to a future user or
>>>> > reviewer. That doesn't help anyone; patches should be committed with
>>>> the
>>>> > intent of running them in production.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'd also like to repeat the above thanks to the many, many
>>>> contributors
>>>> > who've helped with release improvements. Allen's work on
>>>> create-release and
>>>> > automated changes and release notes were essential, as was Xiao's
>>>> work on
>>>> > LICENSE and NOTICE files. I'm also looking forward to Marton's site
>>>> > improvements, which addresses one of the remaining sore spots in the
>>>> > release process.
>>>> >
>>>> > Things have gotten smoother with each alpha we've done over the last
>>>> year,
>>>> > and it's a testament to everyone's work that we have a good
>>>> probability of
>>>> > shipping beta and GA later this year.
>>>> >
>>>> > Cheers,
>>>> > Andrew
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

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