hadoop-yarn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Junping Du <...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.6.4 RC0
Date Fri, 12 Feb 2016 02:31:00 GMT
Thanks Yongjun and Allen for the feedback. I agree that option 2 could be a safer option if
any concern on option 1. Will defer this change to 2.6.5.

Thanks,

Junping
________________________________________
From: Yongjun Zhang <yzhang@cloudera.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 7:11 PM
To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Cc: Hadoop Common; mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.6.4 RC0

Thanks Junping and Allen.

It'd be nice to have HDFS-9629 but I'm ok with option 2, given the fact
that the issue is not critical (and will be addressed in all future
releases), and the concern Allen raised.

Best,

--Yongjun

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Allen Wittenauer <aw@altiscale.com> wrote:

>
> > On Feb 9, 2016, at 6:27 PM, Junping Du <jdu@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Yongjun for identifying and proposing this change to 2.6.4. I
> think this is the right thing to do and check for following releases. For
> 2.6.4, it seems unnecessary to create another release candidate for this
> issue as we only kicking off a new RC build when last RC has serious
> problem in functionality. The vote progress is quite smoothly so far, so it
> seems unlikely that we will create a new RC. However, I think there are
> still two options here:
> > Option 1:  in final build, adopt change of HDFS-9629 that only updates
> the footer of Web UI to show year 2016.
> > Option 2: skip HDFS-9629 for 2.6.4 and adopt it later for 2.6.5.
> > I prefer Option 1 as this is a very low risky change without affecting
> any functionality, and we allow non-functional changes (like release date,
> etc.) happen on final build after RC passed. I would like to hear the
> voices in community here before acting for the next step. Thoughts?
> >
>
>         I’d think having PMC votes apply to what is not actually the final
> artifact is against the ASF rules.
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message