hadoop-yarn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Junping Du <...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Release numbering semantics with concurrent (>2) releases [Was Setting JIRA fix versions for 3.0.0 releases]
Date Mon, 08 Aug 2016 18:44:39 GMT
I think that incompatible API between 3.0.0-alpha and 3.1.0-beta is something less confusing
than incompatible between 2.8/2.9 and 2.98.x alphas/2.99.x betas.
Why not just follow our previous practice in the beginning of branch-2? we can have 3.0.0-alpha,
3.1.0-alpha/beta, but once when we are finalizing our APIs, we should bump up trunk version
to 4.x for landing new incompatible changes.

Thanks,

Junping
________________________________________
From: Karthik Kambatla <kasha@cloudera.com>
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 6:54 PM
Cc: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org;
mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release numbering semantics with concurrent (>2) releases [Was Setting
JIRA fix versions for 3.0.0 releases]

I like the 3.0.0-alphaX approach primarily for simpler understanding of
compatibility guarantees. Calling 3.0.0 alpha and 3.1.0 beta is confusing
because, it is not immediately clear that 3.0.0 and 3.1.0 could be
incompatible in APIs.

I am open to something like 2.98.x for alphas and 2.99.x for betas leading
to a 3.0.0 GA. I have seen other projects use this without causing much
confusion.

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.hadoop@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Andrew Wang <andrew.wang@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Konst, thanks for commenting,
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <
> shv.hadoop@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> 1. I probably missed something but I didn't get it how "alpha"s made
> >> their way into release numbers again. This was discussed on several
> >> occasions and I thought the common perception was to use just three
> level
> >> numbers for release versioning and avoid branding them.
> >> It is particularly confusing to have 3.0.0-alpha1 and 3.0.0-alpha2. What
> >> is alphaX - fourth level? I think releasing 3.0.0 and setting trunk to
> >> 3.1.0 would be perfectly in line with our current release practices.
> >>
> >
> > We discussed release numbering a while ago when discussing the release
> > plan for 3.0.0, and agreed on this scheme. "-alphaX" is essentially a
> > fourth level as you say, but the intent is to only use it (and "-betaX")
> in
> > the leadup to 3.0.0.
> >
> > The goal here is clarity for end users, since most other enterprise
> > software uses a a.0.0 version to denote the GA of a new major version.
> Same
> > for a.b.0 for a new minor version, though we haven't talked about that
> yet.
> > The alphaX and betaX scheme also shares similarity to release versioning
> of
> > other enterprise software.
> >
>
> As you remember we did this (alpha, beta) for Hadoop-2 and I don't think it
> went well with user perception.
> Say release 2.0.5-alpha turned out to be quite good even though still
> branded "alpha", while 2.2 was not and not branded.
> We should move a release to stable, when people ran it and agree it is GA
> worthy. Otherwise you never know.
>
>
> >
> >> 2. I do not see any confusions with releasing 2.8.0 after 3.0.0.
> >> The release number is not intended to reflect historical release
> >> sequence, but rather the point in the source tree, which it was branched
> >> off. So one can release 2.8, 2.9, etc. after or before 3.0.
> >>
> >
> > As described earlier in this thread, the issue here is setting the fix
> > versions such that the changelog is a useful diff from a previous
> version,
> > and also clear about what changes are present in each branch. If we do
> not
> > order a specific 2.x before 3.0, then we don't know what 2.x to diff
> from.
> >
>
> So the problem is in determining the latest commit, which was not present
> in the last release, when the last release bears higher number than the one
> being released.
> Interesting problem. Don't have a strong opinion on that. I guess it's OK
> to have overlapping in changelogs.
> As long as we keep following the rule that commits should be made to trunk
> first and them propagated to lower branches until the target branch is
> reached.
>
>
> >
> >> 3. I agree that current 3.0.0 branch can be dropped and re-cut. We may
> >> think of another rule that if a release branch is not released in 3
> month
> >> it should be abandoned. Which is applicable to branch 2.8.0 and it is
> too
> >> much work syncing it with branch-2.
> >>
> >> Time-based rules are tough here. I'd prefer we continue to leave this up
> > to release managers. If you think we should recut branch-2.8, recommend
> > pinging Vinod and discussing on a new thread.
> >
>
> Not recut, but abandon 2.8.0. And Vinod (or anybody who volunteers to RM)
> can recut  from the desired point.
> People were committing to branch-2 and branch-2.8 for months. And they are
> out of sync anyways. So what's the point of the extra commit.
> Probably still a different thread.
>
> Thanks,
> --Konst
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org


Mime
View raw message