I am +1 to the proposal because it maintains the original cadence a bunch of us committers/contributors have been working with.
Windows related changes have been made in a conservative manner so as not to destabilize the code base. The changes are being extensively tested and validated by community members, especially those from Microsoft. YARN-397 jiras are mainly enhancements that can be added in a backwards compatible manner. Would be great if some of them make it but I would not hold the release for them. Let us all make the effort to get the release out with all the long awaited and useful features as planned. Bikas -----Original Message----- From: Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli [mailto:vino...@hortonworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 12:20 PM To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta I also feel that some of YARN-397 should go in. If you also feel so, please put in a +1 to state your intention. Thanks, +Vinod On May 15, 2013, at 11:32 AM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote: > Do we need to add YARN-397? > > Thanks. > > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Karthik Kambatla <ka...@cloudera.com>wrote: > >> Hi Arun, >> >> Can we add HADOOP-9517 to the list - having compatibility guidelines >> should help us support users and downstream projects better? >> >> Thanks >> Karthik >> >> >> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Arun C Murthy <a...@hortonworks.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Folks, >>> >>> A considerable number of people have expressed confusion regarding >>> the recent vote on 2.0.5, beta status etc. given lack of specifics, >>> the >> voting >>> itself (validity of the vote itself, whose votes are binding) etc. >>> >>> IMHO technical arguments (incompatibility b/w 2.0 & 2.1, current >> stability >>> of 3 features under debate etc.) have been lost in the discussion in >> favor >>> of non-technical (almost dramatic) nuances such as "seizing the moment". >>> There is now dangerous talk of tolerating incompatibility b/w 2.0 >>> and >> 2.1) >>> - this is a red flag for me; particularly when there are just 3 >>> features being debated and active committers and contributors are >>> confident of and ready to stand by their work. All patches, I >>> believe, are ready to be merged in the the next few days per >>> discussions on jira. This will, clearly, not delay the other API work which everyone agrees is crucial. >> As >>> a result, I feel no recourse but to restart a new vote - all >>> attempts at calm, reasoned, civil discussion based on technical >>> arguments have come >> to >>> naught - I apologize for the thrash caused to everyone's attention. >>> >>> To get past all of this confusion, I'd like to present an alternate, >>> specific proposal for consideration. >>> >>> I propose we continue the original plan and make a 2.0.5-beta >>> release by May end with the following content: >>> # HDFS-347 >>> # HDFS Snapshots >>> # Windows support >>> # Necessary & final API/protocol changes such as: >>> * Final YARN API changes: YARN-386 >>> * MR Binary Compatibility: MAPREDUCE-5108 >>> * Final RPC cleanup: HADOOP-8990 >>> >>> People working on the above features have all expressed considerable >>> comfort with them and are ready to stand-by to help expedite any >> necessary >>> bug-fixes etc. to get to stabilization quickly. I'm confident we can >>> get this release out by end of May. This sets stage for a hadoop-2.x >>> GA >> release >>> right after with some more testing - this means I think I can >>> quickly >> turn >>> around and make bug-fix releases as necessary right after 2.0.5-beta. >>> >>> I request that people consider helping out with this plan and sign >>> up to help push hadoop-2.x to stability as outlined above. I believe >>> this will help achieve our shared goals of quickly stabilizing >>> hadoop-2 and help ensure we can support it for forseeable future in >>> a compatible manner for the benefit of our users and downstream projects. >>> >>> Please vote, the vote will run the normal 7 days. Obviously, I'm +1. >>> >>> thanks, >>> Arun >>> >>> PS: To keep this discussion grounded in technical details I've moved >>> this to dev@ (bcc general@). >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > Alejandro
