hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Additional maintenance releases for Hadoop 2.y versions
Date Thu, 16 Jul 2015 01:09:51 GMT
Inline

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <
vinodkv@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> I can understand these (sort of newish) questions from hbase-dev. We
> already have a well laid-out release-management process. If people want to
> learn more about how it works, please head over to
> http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html.
>
> In terms of 2.6.1 release management, it wasn’t stuck for lack of
> volunteers for RM. I originally was driving it [1], and then Akira recently
> volunteered too in a separate thread [2] (which I totally missed
> participating in before), so we have enough help.
>

​Right, but in that thread it looks like you were stymied sorting through
the potential set of updates to apply to the patch release. That was the
motivation behind my sharing a bit about HBase branch RMs. Totally fine if
that's not something Hadoop wants to explore. I only offered it as a data
point where another project avoids that problem with a different kind of RM
focus. And, so, that's that FWIW



>
> It is clearly acknowledged there is a demand for 2.6.1, we now have to
> figure out the mechanics, agreeing on a reasonable & common list of fixes
> to start with.
>
>
​Thank you very much for this consideration!​



> Tx for the feedback so far @hbase-dev! I agree with Karthik earlier -
> let’s continue the discussion in hadoop-dev in the release thread [1] for
> 2.6.1.
>
> Thanks
> +Vinod
>
> [1] Planning Hadoop 2.6.1 release
> http://markmail.org/message/sbykjn5xgnksh6wg
> [2] [DISCUSS] More Maintenance Releases http://s.apache.org/MMR
>
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net<mailto:
> stack@duboce.net>> wrote:
>
> Is there anyone interested in volunteering to run a 2.6.1 release (Akira?)?
> You'd get some help (especially if the bar is set high and only critical
> bug fixes are allowed in: i.e. no features, no 'perf' fixes, no jar
> updates, and so on).
>
> St.Ack
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Chris Douglas <cdouglas@apache.org
> <mailto:cdouglas@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com<mailto:
> busbey@cloudera.com>> wrote:
> Alternatively, why not appoint a Release Manager for the minor release
> line
> and then allow them to arbitrate when there's disagreement about
> inclusion?
> This has worked well in the HBase community.
>
>
> Release managers aren't appointed in Hadoop. Any committer can RM a
> release branch and encourage others to help with it. An RM can set the
> bar arbitrarily, but an RC only becomes a release when a majority of
> PMC votes approve it in a VOTE. -C
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com<mailto:
> busbey@cloudera.com>> wrote:
> Why not just include all backwards compatible bug fixes?
>
> Alternatively, why not appoint a Release Manager for the minor release
> line
> and then allow them to arbitrate when there's disagreement about
> inclusion?
> This has worked well in the HBase community.
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Karthik Kambatla <kasha@cloudera.com
> <mailto:kasha@cloudera.com>>
> wrote:
>
> As I proposed in the other thread, how about we adopting the following
> model:
>
> x.y.1 releases have all Blocker, Critical, Major bug fixes applied to
> the
> next minor release.
> x.y.2 releases have all Blocker, Critical bug fixes applied to the next
> minor release.
> x.y.3 releases have all Blocker bug fixes applied to next minor release.
>
> Here I am assuming there are no security-fix-only or other urgent
> releases.
>
> We could apply this approach for 2.7.x onwards, and do an adhoc 2.6
> release.
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <
> vinodkv@hortonworks.com<mailto:vinodkv@hortonworks.com>> wrote:
>
> Yeah, I started a thread while back on this one (
> http://markmail.org/message/sbykjn5xgnksh6wg) and had many offline
> discussions re 2.6.1.
>
> The biggest problem I found offline was about what bug-fixes are
> acceptable and what aren’t for everyone wishing to consume 2.6.1.
> Given
> the
> number of bug-fixes that went into 2.7.x and into branch-2.8, figuring
> out
> a set of patches that is acceptable for everyone is a huge challenge
> which
> kind of stalled my attempts.
>
> Thanks
> +Vinod
>
>
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 8:57 AM, Sangjin Lee <sjlee0@gmail.com<mailto:
> sjlee0@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Strong +1 for having a 2.6.1 release. I understand Vinod has been
> trying
> to
> get that effort going but it's been stalled a little bit. It would
> be
> good
> to rekindle that effort.
>
> Companies with big hadoop 2.x deployments (including mine) have
> always
> tried to stabilize a 2.x release by testing/collecting/researching
> critical
> issues on the release. Each would come up with its own set of fixes
> to
> backport. We would also communicate it via offline channels. During
> the
> hadoop summit, we thought it would be great if we all came together
> and
> create a public stability/bugfix release on top of 2.x (2.6.1 for
> 2.6
> for
> example) with all the critical issues fixed.
>
> Thanks,
> Sangjin
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Tsuyoshi Ozawa <ozawa@apache.org<mailto:
> ozawa@apache.org>>
> wrote:
>
> Thank you for the notification. Trying to back port bug fixes.
>
> - Tsuyoshi
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com<mailto:
> busbey@cloudera.com>>
> wrote:
> Hi Hadoopers!
>
> Over in HBase we've been discussing the impact of our
> dependencies on
> our
> downstream users. As our most fundamental dependency, Hadoop
> plays a
> big
> role in the operational cost of running an HBase instance.
>
> Currently the HBase 1.y release line supports Hadoop 2.4, 2.5, and
> 2.6[1].
> We don't drop Hadoop minor release lines in minor releases so we
> are
> unlikely remove anything from this set until HBase 2.0, probably
> at
> the
> end
> of 2015 / start of 2016 (and currently we plan to continue
> supporting
> at
> least 2.4 for HBase 2.0 [2]). Lately we've been discussing
> updating
> our
> shipped binaries to Hadoop 2.6, following some stability testing
> by
> part
> of
> our community[3]. Unfortunately, 2.6.0 in particular has a couple
> of
> bugs
> that could destroy HBase clusters should users decide to turn on
> HDFS
> encryption[4]. Our installation instructions tell folks to replace
> these
> jars with the version of Hadoop they are actually running, but not
> all
> users follow those instructions so we want to minimize the pain
> for
> them.
>
> Regular maintenance releases are key to keeping operational
> burdens
> low
> for
> our downstream users; we don't want them to be forced to choose
> between
> living with broken systems and stomaching the risk of upgrades
> across
> minor/major version numbers. Looking back over the three
> aforementioned
> Hadoop versions, 2.6 hasn't had a patch release since 2.6.0 came
> out
> in
> Nov
> 2014, when 2.5 had its last patch release as well. Hadoop 2.4
> looks
> to
> be a
> year without a release[5]. On our discussion of shipping Hadoop
> 2.6
> binaries, one of your PMC members mentioned that with continued
> work
> on
> the
> 2.7 line y'all weren't planning any additional releases of the
> earlier
> minor versions[6].
>
> The HBase community requests that Hadoop pick up making
> bug-fix-only
> patch
> releases again on a regular schedule[7]. Preferably on the 2.6
> line
> and
> preferably monthly. We realize that given the time gap since
> 2.6.0 it
> will
> likely take a big to get 2.6.1 together, but after that it should
> take
> much
> less effort to continue.
>
> [1]: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop
> [2]: http://s.apache.org/ReP
> [3]: HBASE-13339
> [4]: HADOOP-11674 and HADOOP-11710
> [5]: http://hadoop.apache.org/releases.html
> [6]: http://s.apache.org/MTY
> [7]: http://s.apache.org/ViP
>
> --
> Sean
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Karthik Kambatla
> Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc.
> --------------------------------------------
> http://five.sentenc.es
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sean
>
>
>


-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

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