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: [VOTE] Merging branch HDFS-7240 to trunk
Date Mon, 05 Mar 2018 23:54:45 GMT
Hi Owen, Wangda,

Thanks for clearly laying out the subproject options, that helps the
discussion.

I'm all onboard with the idea of regular releases, and it's something I
tried to do with the 3.0 alphas and betas. The problem though isn't a lack
of commitment from feature developers like Sanjay or Jitendra; far from it!
I think every feature developer makes a reasonable effort to test their
code before it's merged. Yet, my experience as an RM is that more code
comes with more risk. I don't believe that Ozone is special or different in
this regard. It comes with a maintenance cost, not a maintenance benefit.

I'm advocating for #3: separate source, separate release. Since HDSL
stability and FSN/BM refactoring are still a ways out, I don't want to
incur a maintenance cost now. I sympathize with the sentiment that working
cross-repo is harder than within same repo, but the right tooling can make
this a lot easier (e.g. git submodule, Google's repo tool). We have
experience doing this internally here at Cloudera, and I'm happy to share
knowledge and possibly code.

Best,
Andrew

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Wangda Tan <wheeleast@gmail.com> wrote:

> I like the idea of same source / same release and put Ozone's source under
> a different directory.
>
> Like Owen mentioned, It gonna be important for all parties to keep a
> regular and shorter release cycle for Hadoop, e.g. 3-4 months between minor
> releases. Users can try features and give feedbacks to stabilize feature
> earlier; developers can be happier since efforts will be consumed by users
> soon after features get merged. In addition to this, if features merged to
> trunk after reasonable tests/review, Andrew's concern may not be a problem
> anymore:
>
> bq. Finally, I earnestly believe that Ozone/HDSL itself would benefit from
> being a separate project. Ozone could release faster and iterate more
> quickly if it wasn't hampered by Hadoop's release schedule and security and
> compatibility requirements.
>
> Thanks,
> Wangda
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Owen O'Malley <owen.omalley@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Andrew Wang <andrew.wang@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Owen mentioned making a Hadoop subproject; we'd have to
>> > hash out what exactly this means (I assume a separate repo still
>> managed by
>> > the Hadoop project), but I think we could make this work if it's more
>> > attractive than incubation or a new TLP.
>>
>>
>> Ok, there are multiple levels of sub-projects that all make sense:
>>
>>    - Same source tree, same releases - examples like HDFS & YARN
>>    - Same master branch, separate releases and release branches - Hive's
>>    Storage API vs Hive. It is in the source tree for the master branch,
>> but
>>    has distinct releases and release branches.
>>    - Separate source, separate release - Apache Commons.
>>
>> There are advantages and disadvantages to each. I'd propose that we use
>> the
>> same source, same release pattern for Ozone. Note that we tried and later
>> reverted doing Common, HDFS, and YARN as separate source, separate release
>> because it was too much trouble. I like Daryn's idea of putting it as a
>> top
>> level directory in Hadoop and making sure that nothing in Common, HDFS, or
>> YARN depend on it. That way if a Release Manager doesn't think it is ready
>> for release, it can be trivially removed before the release.
>>
>> One thing about using the same releases, Sanjay and Jitendra are signing
>> up
>> to make much more regular bugfix and minor releases in the near future.
>> For
>> example, they'll need to make 3.2 relatively soon to get it released and
>> then 3.3 somewhere in the next 3 to 6 months. That would be good for the
>> project. Hadoop needs more regular releases and fewer big bang releases.
>>
>> .. Owen
>>
>
>

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