hadoop-yarn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Trezzo <ctre...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Release thread] 2.6.5 release activities
Date Wed, 10 Aug 2016 20:30:33 GMT
Thanks Jason and Junping for the comments! I will update the spreadsheet
for HADOOP-13362 and YARN-4794.

As for continuing 2.6.x releases, please see the discussion in the "[DISCUSS]
2.6.x line releases" thread. Sean, Akira and Zhe all expressed interest in
additional 2.6.x releases. I started this thread based off of that
interest. I understand there is a burden to maintaining a large number of
branches. I am not sure what the community's end-of-life policy is, but
maybe we can issue a warning with the 2.6.5 release stating when we will
stop maintaining the release line. This at least gives users some time to
make migration plans to a newer version.

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Junping Du <jdu@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> Thanks Chris for bring up this discussion.
> Before we going to detail discussion of releasing 2.6.5, I have a quick
> question here: do we think it is necessary to continue to release
> branch-2.6, like 2.6.5, etc after 2.7 is out for more than 1 year. Any
> reason to not suggest users to upgrade to 2.7.3 releases for latest fixes
> which is in releasing now?
> My major concern on more release efforts on legacy branches is the same
> with my comments on other release plan before - it seems too many releases
> trains get planned at the same time window (2.6.x, 2.7.x, 2.8, 3.0-alpha,
> 3.1-beta, etc.). Not only user could get confusing on this, but also I
> suspect we don't have so many bandwidth in community to push forward so
> these releases in high quality during the same time window - just like
> Chris Douglas mentioned in another email thread on committer activity and
> bandwidth. IMO, may be it is better to focus on limited number of releases
> and move them faster?
>
> BTW, I agree with Jason that HADOOP-13362 is not needed for branch-2.6
> unless we backport container metrics related patches there.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Junping
> ________________________________________
> From: Jason Lowe <jlowe@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 4:14 PM
> To: Chris Trezzo; common-dev@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org;
> mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Release thread] 2.6.5 release activities
>
> Thanks for organizing this, Chris!
> I don't believe HADOOP-13362 is needed since it's related to
> ContainerMetrics.  ContainerMetrics weren't added until 2.7 by YARN-2984.
> YARN-4794 looks applicable to 2.6.  The change drops right in except it
> has JDK7-isms (multi-catch clause), so it needs a slight change.
>
> Jason
>
>       From: Chris Trezzo <ctrezzo@gmail.com>
>  To: "common-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <common-dev@hadoop.apache.org>;
> hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org; "mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <
> mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org>; "yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <
> yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org>
>  Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 7:32 PM
>  Subject: [Release thread] 2.6.5 release activities
>
> Based on the sentiment in the "[DISCUSS] 2.6.x line releases" thread, I
> have moved forward with some of the initial effort in creating a 2.6.5
> release. I am forking this thread so we have a dedicated 2.6.5 release
> thread.
>
> I have gone through the git logs and gathered a list of JIRAs that are in
> branch-2.7 but are missing from branch-2.6. I limited the diff to issues
> with a commit date after 1/26/2016. I did this because 2.6.4 was cut from
> branch-2.6 around that date (http://markmail.org/message/xmy7ebs6l3643o5e)
> and presumably issues that were committed to branch-2.7 before then were
> already looked at as part of 2.6.4.
>
> I have collected these issues in a spreadsheet and have given them an
> initial triage on whether they are candidates for a backport to 2.6.5. The
> spreadsheet is sorted by the status of the issues with the potential
> backport candidates at the top. Here is a link to the spreadsheet:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lfG2CYQ7W4q3olWpOCo6EBAey1WYC
> 8hTRUemHvYPPzY/edit?usp=sharing
>
> As of now, I have identified 16 potential backport candidates. Please take
> a look at the list and let me know if there are any that you think should
> not be on the list, or ones that you think I have missed. This was just an
> initial high-level triage, so there could definitely be issues that are
> miss-labeled.
>
> As a side note: we still need to look at the pre-commit build for 2.6 and
> follow up with an addendum for HADOOP-12800.
>
> Thanks everyone!
> Chris Trezzo
>
>

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