> Needless to say stability is not just a concern of downstream projects. We > spend long hours, day in day out, trying to ensure features are stable as > core contributors.
I'm sure this is the case but the basic integration blockers that Roman has pointed out on this thread indicates that integration testing is not. I would expect that, of course. Again, I only ask that you give that concern a fresh look. On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Suresh Srinivas <sur...@hortonworks.com>wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > The other thread or "vote" or whatever at least served the purpose in > fresh > > surfacing of concerns. Talk of new features going in to a "beta" on a > very > > short short timetable is concerning for anyone with experience working on > > large software projects. It's not a little ironic that this vote thread, > > done in response to sort out the other one predicated on stability > > concerns, begins with a laundry list of features and JIRAs to go in. I > > think it is usually the case that a beta release receives only bugfixes* > > over the alpha that proceeded it. This may just be a lack of consensus on > > what "beta" means. > > > > Assuming that you are talking about HDFS features when you say > "features going into a beta on a very short short timetable" and > "laundry list" etc, I request you to take a cursory look at the development > of these features. > > Snapshot is being developed since 2012 Nov, excluding the early > prototype that happened in 2012 May. Most of the development > was complete by the early February except for the support of rename > capability, which has been tricky. As regards to Windows support, this is a > work that has been happening for more than an year in many other branches. > > So these features are not something that are impulsively developed > and irresponsibly pushed to a release. They have gone through > considerable testing and have been developed over a long time. > > > > > Please set aside discussion on particular features or Hadoop bylaws or > > politics or debate club. I can't speak for all of downstream of course, > but > > to the extent that I can I can say we don't care about that. The core > ask, > > at least mine, is take a fresh look at reducing per-release disruptions > to > > the rest of the entire ecosystem that has grown up around Hadoop. > > > What is the disruption you anticipate due to the current content of > the release? > > If it is stability, I am confident that very few bugs will come out > of these features and stability should not be affected. This has been > the case for the HDFS features for many years. The development > is generally done in a feature branch, the feature is tested and stabilized > in that branch before merging to trunk. This is contrary to few people's > incorrect claims about how it has taken a long time to stabilize an HDFS > features in branch-2. > > Needless to say stability is not just a concern of downstream projects. We > spend long hours, day in day out, trying to ensure features are stable as > core contributors. > > Regards, > Suresh > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
