On May 1, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Arun C Murthy <a...@hortonworks.com> wrote: >> >> On Apr 30, 2013, at 4:28 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: >> >>> If the next release has to be 2.0.5 I would like to make an alternative >>> proposal, which would include >>> - stabilization of current 2.0.4 >>> - making all API changes to allow freezing them post 2.0.5 >>> And nothing else. >> >> I think it's hard to clearly define - 'nothing else'. For e.g. > YARN-398/YARN-392. It's a 'feature' but worth putting in right-away since > it so low-risk. MAPREDUCE-5108 is a 'feature' but is critical for ensuring > a smooth transition from MR1 to MR2 etc. etc. >> > > Don't see contradictions to the plan here. > Both YARN-398, YARN-392 are important optimizations. They require API > changes, so it is better to commit them into 2.0.5. If RM sees a low risk > in including the implementations, I don't see a problem. > MAPREDUCE-5108 as a compatibility issue should go in, imho.
Actually, YARN-398/YARN-392 and other such optimizations can go in in future too releases in a compatible manner too since we have PB-based protocols in YARN (as in HDFS). However, they serve to illustrate why having a very narrow view of 'allowed' changes for the next 3-4 weeks will just add needless complexity. IAC, like I said it would be better to let individual contributors decide on risk of individual changes since they are the ones supporting them. Having a strict policy leads to all sorts of further dialogues and issues we could do well without. thanks, Arun
