hadoop-mapreduce-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Lowe <jl...@yahoo-inc.com>
Subject Re: Next releases
Date Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:55:15 GMT
I think a lot of confusion comes from the fact that the 2.x line is 
starting to mature.  Before this there wasn't such a big contention of 
what went into patch vs. minor releases and often the lines were blurred 
between the two.  However now we have significant customers and products 
starting to use 2.x as a base, which means we need to start treating it 
like we treat 1.x.  That means getting serious about what we should put 
into a patch release vs. what we postpone to a minor release.

Here's my $0.02 on recent proposals:

+1 to releasing more often in general.  A lot of the rush to put changes 
into a patch release is because it can be a very long time between any 
kind of release.  If minor releases are more frequent then I hope there 
would be less of a need to rush something or hold up a release.

+1 to limiting checkins of patch releases to Blockers/Criticals.  If 
necessary committers check into trunk/branch-2 only and defer to the 
patch release manager for the patch release merge.  Then there should be 
fewer surprises for everyone what ended up in a patch release and less 
likely the patch release becomes destabilized from the sheer amount of 
code churn.  Maybe this won't be necessary if everyone understands that 
the patch release isn't the only way to get a change out in timely manner.

As for 2.2.1, again I think it's expectations for what that release 
means.  If it's really just a patch release then there shouldn't be 
features in it and tons of code churn, but I think many were treating it 
as the next vehicle to deliver changes in general.  If we think 2.2.1 is 
just as good or better than 2.2.0 then let's wrap it up and move to a 
more disciplined approach for subsequent patch releases and more 
frequent minor releases.


On 11/13/2013 12:10 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Colin McCabe <cmccabe@alumni.cmu.edu>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

View raw message