hadoop-yarn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Akira AJISAKA <ajisa...@oss.nttdata.co.jp>
Subject Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release
Date Fri, 19 Feb 2016 02:28:12 GMT
+1 for the 3.0 release plan and continuing 2.x releases.
I'm thinking we should consider stopping new 2.x minor releases after 
3.x reaches GA.

Thanks,
Akira

On 2/19/16 10:33, Gangumalla, Uma wrote:
> Yes. I think starting 3.0 release with alpha is good idea. So it would get
> some time to reach the beta or GA.
>
> +1 for the plan.
>
> For the compatibility purposes and as current stable versions, we should
> continue 2.x releases anyway.
>
> Thanks Andrew for starting the thread.
>
> Regards,
> Uma
>
> On 2/18/16, 3:04 PM, "Andrew Wang" <andrew.wang@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Kihwal,
>>
>> I think there's still value in continuing the 2.x releases. 3.x comes with
>> the incompatible bump to a JDK8 runtime, and also the fact that 3.x won't
>> be beta or GA for some number of months. In the meanwhile, it'd be good to
>> keep putting out regular, stable 2.x releases.
>>
>> Best,
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Kihwal Lee <kihwal@yahoo-inc.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Moving Hadoop 3 forward sounds fine. If EC is one of the main
>>> motivations,
>>> are we getting rid of branch-2.8?
>>>
>>> Kihwal
>>>
>>>        From: Andrew Wang <andrew.wang@cloudera.com>
>>>   To: "common-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <common-dev@hadoop.apache.org>
>>> Cc: "yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org>; "
>>> mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org>;
>>> hdfs-dev <hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org>
>>>   Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 4:35 PM
>>>   Subject: Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Reviving this thread. I've seen renewed interest in a trunk release
>>> since
>>> HDFS erasure coding has not yet made it to branch-2. Along with JDK8,
>>> the
>>> shell script rewrite, and many other improvements, I think it's time to
>>> revisit Hadoop 3.0 release plans.
>>>
>>> My overall plan is still the same as in my original email: a series of
>>> regular alpha releases leading up to beta and GA. Alpha releases make it
>>> easier for downstreams to integrate with our code, and making them
>>> regular
>>> means features can be included when they are ready.
>>>
>>> I know there are some incompatible changes waiting in the wings
>>> (i.e. HDFS-6984 making FileStatus a PB rather than Writable, some of
>>> HADOOP-9991 bumping dependency versions) that would be good to get in.
>>> If
>>> you have changes like this, please set the target version to 3.0.0 and
>>> mark
>>> them "Incompatible". We can use this JIRA query to track:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20in%20(HADOOP%2C%20HD
>>> FS%2C%20YARN%2C%20MAPREDUCE)%20and%20%22Target%20Version%2Fs%22%20%3D%20%
>>> 223.0.0%22%20and%20resolution%3D%22unresolved%22%20and%20%22Hadoop%20Flag
>>> s%22%3D%22Incompatible%20change%22%20order%20by%20priority
>>>
>>> There's some release-related stuff that needs to be sorted out (namely,
>>> the
>>> new CHANGES.txt and release note generation from Yetus), but I'd
>>> tentatively like to roll the first alpha a month out, so third week of
>>> March.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Raymie Stata <rstata@altiscale.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Avoiding the use of JDK8 language features (and, presumably, APIs)
>>>> means you've abandoned #1, i.e., you haven't (really) bumped the JDK
>>>> source version to JDK8.
>>>>
>>>> Also, note that releasing from trunk is a way of achieving #3, it's
>>>> not a way of abandoning it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Andrew Wang <andrew.wang@cloudera.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Raymie,
>>>>>
>>>>> Konst proposed just releasing off of trunk rather than cutting a
>>>> branch-2,
>>>>> and there was general agreement there. So, consider #3 abandoned.
>>> 1&2
>>> can
>>>>> be achieved at the same time, we just need to avoid using JDK8
>>> language
>>>>> features in trunk so things can be backported.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Raymie Stata <rstata@altiscale.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In this (and the related threads), I see the following three
>>>> requirements:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. "Bump the source JDK version to JDK8" (ie, drop JDK7 support).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. "We'll still be releasing 2.x releases for a while, with similar
>>>>>> feature sets as 3.x."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. Avoid the "risk of split-brain behavior" by "minimize
>>> backporting
>>>>>> headaches. Pulling trunk > branch-2 > branch-2.x is already
>>> tedious.
>>>>>> Adding a branch-3, branch-3.x would be obnoxious."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These three cannot be achieved at the same time.  Which do we
>>> abandon?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:45 PM, sanjay Radia
>>> <sanjayosrc@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mar 5, 2015, at 3:21 PM, Siddharth Seth <sseth@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) Simplification of configs - potentially separating client
>>> side
>>>>>> configs
>>>>>>>> and those used by daemons. This is another source of perpetual
>>>> confusion
>>>>>>>> for users.
>>>>>>> + 1 on this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sanjay
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>


Mime
View raw message