hadoop-yarn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sangjin Lee <sj...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release
Date Fri, 19 Feb 2016 01:55:30 GMT
Another thing to throw in there is the dependency/classpath isolation
(HADOOP-11656). Some efforts have already been made by Sean, and it'd be
great to complete this to have a much better dependency isolation solution
for 3.x.

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Gangumalla, Uma <uma.gangumalla@intel.com>
wrote:

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