hadoop-yarn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric Badger <ebad...@verizonmedia.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Mark 2.6, 2.7, 3.0 release lines EOL
Date Mon, 26 Aug 2019 14:20:19 GMT
- Stuff has been going into branch-2 sporadically but I don't who is
actively
using that code other than as part of a cherrypick backwards strategy.

- Should we do a 2.10.x release? Or just say "time to upgrade?"

We have talked at a few different Hadoop contributors meetups and community
syncs and agreed that 2.10 should serve as a "bridge" release for 3.x so
that 2.x clients can talk to 3.x servers and vice versa without
compatibility issues. At the last meeting where we discussed this it seemed
that there were 3 major compatibility issues. The biggest one was in the
edit logs.

Verizon Media is currently working on upgrading to branch-2 from
branch-2.8. I believe LinkedIn is also interested in branch-2 and working
towards a 2.10 release.

Eric

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 9:03 AM Steve Loughran <stevel@cloudera.com.invalid>
wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 2:25 AM Wangda Tan <wheeleast@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > The proposal is to EOL for the following branches:
> >
> > [2.0.x - 2.7.x]
> > [3.0.x]
> >
> > 2.8.x, 2.9.x, 2.10.x (not released yet), 3.1.x (and later) are not EOL.
> >
>
> one final 2.8.x, 1+ for 2.9, and then we have to start thinking 2.10 as a
> "last ever branch- release".
>
> Stuff has been going into branch-2 sporadically but I don't who is actively
> using that code other than as part of a cherrypick backwards strategy.
>
> Should we do a 2.10.x release? Or just say "time to upgrade?"
>
>
>
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 1:40 AM Steve Loughran <stevel@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 4:03 AM Wangda Tan <wheeleast@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> This is a vote thread to mark any versions smaller than 2.7
> (inclusive),
> >>> and 3.0 EOL. This is based on discussions of [1]
> >>>
> >>
> >> 3.0 inclusive? i.e the non EOl ones being 2.8+ and 3.1+?
> >>
> >
>

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