+1 (binding) on the proposal. However, the value we get from these "release plan" votes is dubious, to put it mildly. The surrounding discussion has cost more than it is worth, and votes on executive summaries of releases discourage the sort of detailed collaboration we're trying to create. It replaces development with zero-sum struggles over abstractions.
This is, in effect, another poll about the direction we're taking 2.x. If we can't reach consensus on development directions without voting, that's more evidence that the project should be split, IMO. -C On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Steve Loughran <ste...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > On 15 May 2013 10:57, 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. >> > > +1 (binding)
