BCC: general@ Since we recognize now that this is a vote to overrule previous decision, I am referring to Vinod's note on general *http://s.apache.org/h7x* should this be brought to the attention of the Board?
I don't remember any precedents of this kind in Hadoop history. But other projects may have had such experience. A clarification on categorizing this action and on voting practices from ASF may help. Thanks, --Konstantin On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com>wrote: > Arun, > > I am glad I at least convinced you to finally announce your release plan > and put it into vote. > Even though it is to overrule the vote that just completed, which you were > against and lost, well - Twice. > > I am glad you removed the NFS feature from the list proposed earlier. > > I think this vote is late. The lazy consensus on that issue has been just > reached. > I don't see the basis for the new vote, > and it is not clear what action you seek to approve. > > Thanks, > --Konstantin > > > > 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@). >> >> >
