hadoop-mapreduce-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Branches and versions for Hadoop 3
Date Tue, 29 Aug 2017 20:33:16 GMT
Hi Subru,

Basically we're amending the proposal from the original email in the chain
to also immediately create the branch-3.0.0-beta1 release branch. As
described in my 2017-08-25 wiki update, we're gating the merge of these two
features to branch-3.0 on additional testing,  but this keeps 3.0.0 open
for development.

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/Hadoop+3+release+status+updates

For completeness, here's what our branches and versions would look like:

trunk: 3.1.0-SNAPSHOT
branch-3.0: 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT
branch-3.0.0-beta1: 3.0.0-beta1-SNAPSHOT
branch-2 and etc: remain as is

Best,
Andrew

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Subramaniam V K <subru.vk@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> First up thanks for tirelessly pushing on 3.0 release.
>
> I am confused about your comment on creating 2 branches as my
> understanding of Jason's (and Vinod's) comments are that we defer creating
> branch-3?
>
> IMHO, we should consider creating branch-3 (necessary but not sufficient)
> only when we have:
>
>    1. a significant incompatible change.
>    2. a new feature that cannot be turned off without affecting core
>    components.
>
> In summary, I feel we should follow a lazy rather than eager approach
> towards creating mainline branches.
>
> Thanks,
> Subru
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Wangda Tan <wheeleast@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Gotcha, make sense, so I will hold commit until you cut the two branches
>> and TSv2 get committed.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Wangda
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Andrew Wang <andrew.wang@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Wangda,
>> >
>> > I'll cut two branches: branch-3.0 (3.0.0-SNAPSHOT) and
>> branch-3.0.0-beta1
>> > (3.0.0-beta1-SNAPSHOT). This way we can merge GA features to branch-3.0
>> but
>> > not branch-3.0.0-beta1.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Andrew
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Wangda Tan <wheeleast@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Vrushali,
>> >>
>> >> Sure we can wait TSv2 merged before merge resource profile branch.
>> >>
>> >> Andrew,
>> >>
>> >> My understanding is you're going to cut branch-3.0 for 3.0-beta1, and
>> the
>> >> same branch (branch-3.0) will be used for 3.0-GA as well. So my
>> question
>> >> is, there're several features (TSv2, resource profile, YARN-5734) are
>> >> targeted to merge to 3.0-GA but not 3.0-beta1, which branch we should
>> >> commit to, and when we can commit? Also, similar to 3.0.0-alpha1 to 4,
>> you
>> >> will cut branch-3.0.0-beta1, correct?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Wangda
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Andrew Wang <
>> andrew.wang@cloudera.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Sure. Ping me when the TSv2 goes in, and I can take care of branching.
>> >>>
>> >>> We're still waiting on the native services and S3Guard merges, but I
>> >>> don't want to hold branching to the last minute.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Vrushali C <vrushalic2016@gmail.com
>> >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Hi Andrew,
>> >>>> As Rohith mentioned, if you are good with it, from the TSv2 side,
we
>> >>>> are ready to go for merge tonight itself (Pacific time)  right after
>> the
>> >>>> voting period ends. Varun Saxena has been diligently rebasing up
>> until now
>> >>>> so most likely our merge should be reasonably straightforward.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> @Wangda: your resource profile vote ends tomorrow, could we please
>> >>>> coordinate our merges?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> thanks
>> >>>> Vrushali
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Rohith Sharma K S <
>> >>>> rohithsharmaks@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On 29 August 2017 at 06:24, Andrew Wang <andrew.wang@cloudera.com>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> > So far I've seen no -1's to the branching proposal, so
I plan to
>> >>>>> execute
>> >>>>> > this tomorrow unless there's further feedback.
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> For on going branch merge threads i.e TSv2, voting will be closing
>> >>>>> tomorrow. Does it end up in merging into trunk(3.1.0-SNAPSHOT)
and
>> >>>>> branch-3.0(3.0.0-beta1-SNAPSHOT) ? If so, would you be able
to wait
>> >>>>> for
>> >>>>> couple of more days before creating branch-3.0 so that TSv2
branch
>> >>>>> merge
>> >>>>> would be done directly to trunk?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > Regarding the above discussion, I think Jason and I have
>> essentially
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>> > same opinion.
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > I hope that keeping trunk a release branch means a higher
bar for
>> >>>>> merges
>> >>>>> > and code review in general. In the past, I've seen some
patches
>> >>>>> committed
>> >>>>> > to trunk-only as a way of passing responsibility to a future
user
>> or
>> >>>>> > reviewer. That doesn't help anyone; patches should be committed
>> with
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>> > intent of running them in production.
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > I'd also like to repeat the above thanks to the many, many
>> >>>>> contributors
>> >>>>> > who've helped with release improvements. Allen's work on
>> >>>>> create-release and
>> >>>>> > automated changes and release notes were essential, as
was Xiao's
>> >>>>> work on
>> >>>>> > LICENSE and NOTICE files. I'm also looking forward to Marton's
>> site
>> >>>>> > improvements, which addresses one of the remaining sore
spots in
>> the
>> >>>>> > release process.
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > Things have gotten smoother with each alpha we've done
over the
>> last
>> >>>>> year,
>> >>>>> > and it's a testament to everyone's work that we have a
good
>> >>>>> probability of
>> >>>>> > shipping beta and GA later this year.
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > Cheers,
>> >>>>> > Andrew
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>

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