hadoop-yarn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <vino...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release
Date Mon, 09 Mar 2015 19:17:22 GMT

On Mar 6, 2015, at 5:20 PM, Chris Douglas <cdouglas@apache.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
> <vinodkv@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>> I'd encourage everyone to post their wish list on the Roadmap wiki that *warrants*
making incompatible changes forcing us to go 3.x.
> This is a useful exercise, but not a prerequisite to releasing 3.0.0
> as an alpha off of trunk, right? Andrew summarized the operating
> assumptions for anyone working on it: rolling upgrades still work,
> wire compat is preserved, breaking changes may get rolled back when
> branch-3 is in beta (so be very conservative, notify others loudly).
> This applies to branches merged to trunk, also.

Not a prerequisite for alpha releases, yes. But it will be for a 'GA' release, because after
that we will be back to restricting incompatible changes on 3.x line and we have to say no
to features that need API breakage after that. If others feel there are features that warrant
incompatibility, we should hear about them for inclusion in such a 3.x release. Till now,
the operating assumption was to not break anything as much as possible. If we are opening
the window on incompatibilities in 3.x, might as well get everyone to think about stuff that
they want.

>> +1 to Jason's comments on general. We can keep rolling alphas that downstream can
pick up, but I'd also like us to clarify the exit criterion for a GA release of 3.0 and its
relation to the life of 2.x if we are going this route. This brings us back to the roadmap
discussion, and a collective agreement about a logical step at a future point in time where
we say we have enough incompatible features in 3.x that we can stop putting more of them and
start stabilizing it.
> We'll have this discussion again. We don't need to reach consensus on
> the roadmap, just that each artifact reflects the output of the
> project.

Agreed. I wasn't requesting us to reach a consensus on the roadmap. Just requesting others
to put their wish list up.

>> Irrespective of that, here is my proposal in the interim:
>> - Run JDK7 + JDK8 first in a compatible manner like I mentioned before for atleast
two releases in branch-2: say 2.8 and 2.9 before we consider taking up the gauntlet on 3.0.
>> - Continue working on the classpath isolation effort and try making it as compatible
as is possible for users to opt in and migrate easily.
> +1 for 2.x, but again I don't understand the sequencing. -C

There isn't. I was saying "Irrespective of that"..


View raw message