Roman, I keep this same argument again and again. Should've refuted earlier.
Please list down all the issues that BigTop ran into *because of* new features. You continue to argue that new features are destabilizing 2.0.*, which I don't agree with at all. 2.0.3-alpha was the last time major features got merged in, and we found blockers irrespective of those. MAPREDUCE-5240 specifically isn't due to any feature merge. This was a bug. I'd say this is a long standing bug in 2.0.x. You sure this passed in 2.0.3? Even so, this is mostly broken by another bug-fix and *not* because of any feature. I quickly checked other bugs you reported in 2.0.x: - MAPREDUCE-5088 was caused by the fix for HADOOP-9299 which was again a long standing issue in 2.0.x - MAPREDUCE-3728 is similar - MAPREDUCE-5117 is similar - MAPREDUCE-4219 was a security related feature request from you. - MAPREDUCE-3916 was because of new proxy-server added. I am not arguing that new features *may* destabilize the branch, but you've repeatedly stated this as if that were a fact. Really appreciate the testing done by BigTop, but please don't distort the facts. Thanks, +Vinod On May 15, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > Please tell me if my expectations are incorrect, but to me the -beta would > signify it being a 'safe' target for the downstream components. We're still > finding *very* basic and *very* disruptive issues (MAPREDUCE-5240 is > a good example) that essentially mean DOA for downstream that depends > on this functionality. > > Are we comfortable with delivering 2.0.5-beta and later on starting > to discover things like MAPREDUCE-5240 more or less accidentally?
