hadoop-yarn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Junping Du <...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.6.4 RC0
Date Fri, 12 Feb 2016 02:31:00 GMT
Thanks Yongjun and Allen for the feedback. I agree that option 2 could be a safer option if
any concern on option 1. Will defer this change to 2.6.5.


From: Yongjun Zhang <yzhang@cloudera.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 7:11 PM
To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Cc: Hadoop Common; mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.6.4 RC0

Thanks Junping and Allen.

It'd be nice to have HDFS-9629 but I'm ok with option 2, given the fact
that the issue is not critical (and will be addressed in all future
releases), and the concern Allen raised.



On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Allen Wittenauer <aw@altiscale.com> wrote:

> > On Feb 9, 2016, at 6:27 PM, Junping Du <jdu@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Yongjun for identifying and proposing this change to 2.6.4. I
> think this is the right thing to do and check for following releases. For
> 2.6.4, it seems unnecessary to create another release candidate for this
> issue as we only kicking off a new RC build when last RC has serious
> problem in functionality. The vote progress is quite smoothly so far, so it
> seems unlikely that we will create a new RC. However, I think there are
> still two options here:
> > Option 1:  in final build, adopt change of HDFS-9629 that only updates
> the footer of Web UI to show year 2016.
> > Option 2: skip HDFS-9629 for 2.6.4 and adopt it later for 2.6.5.
> > I prefer Option 1 as this is a very low risky change without affecting
> any functionality, and we allow non-functional changes (like release date,
> etc.) happen on final build after RC passed. I would like to hear the
> voices in community here before acting for the next step. Thoughts?
> >
>         I’d think having PMC votes apply to what is not actually the final
> artifact is against the ASF rules.

View raw message