hadoop-yarn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sunil Govindan <sun...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9
Date Thu, 27 Aug 2020 12:12:09 GMT
+1

Thanks
Sunil

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:49 PM Xiaoqiao He <xq.he2009@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for putting 2.9 release lines to EOL.
>
> Thanks,
> Hexiaoqiao
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:14 PM Mingliang Liu <liuml07@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 for putting 2.9 lines to EOL.
>>
>> Let's focus on 2.10 releases for Hadoop 2. Also is there any plan for
>> 2.10.1? It has been 11 months since 2.10 first release.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:57 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <weichiu@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>> >
>> > Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
>> start
>> > the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>> >
>> > I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines
>> and
>> > make more frequent releases in each line.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Weichiu
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <weichiu@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I think that's a great suggestion.
>> > > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
>> > release
>> > > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
>> > > previous one.
>> > > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
>> Having a
>> > > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
>> > with
>> > > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
>> > easier,
>> > > which is currently a pain)
>> > >
>> > > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
>> v.s.
>> > > non-LTS is one suggestion.
>> > >
>> > > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
>> > > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
>> > CVEs
>> > > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
>> > > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
>> > > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
>> > update
>> > > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
>> change?
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <idv@google.com.invalid>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
>> > >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
>> them
>> > for
>> > >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
>> non-LTS
>> > >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
>> > >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
>> provide
>> > >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
>> > LTS
>> > >> release and upgrading to it.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
>> > rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself,
I
>> vote
>> > >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
>> > >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily
>> if
>> > >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
>> > >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there
3.1.x
>> > and
>> > >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
>> > >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources
to
>> > >>> manage multiple release lines,
>> > >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Cheers
>> > >>> Rupert
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
>> > >>> <weichiu@cloudera.com.invalid>:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists
to the
>> > user
>> > >>>> mailing lists.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop
2.9.
>> > >>>> Please share your thoughts.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
>> > >>>> <sree_at_chess@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> +1
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
>> weichiu@apache.org
>> > >
>> > >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start
a
>> > >>>>> discussion
>> > >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use
the word
>> > "end
>> > >>>>> of
>> > >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
>> > >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018,
which is
>> more
>> > >>>>> than
>> > >>>>> 15 months ago.
>> > >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager
for
>> > 2.9.3.
>> > >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are
using
>> Hadoop
>> > >>>>> 2.10
>> > >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
>> > >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
>> release
>> > >>>>> line,
>> > >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint
in Hadoop
>> > >>>>> 2.x, and
>> > >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Thoughts?
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> L
>>
>

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