Why not just include all backwards compatible bug fixes? Alternatively, why not appoint a Release Manager for the minor release line and then allow them to arbitrate when there's disagreement about inclusion? This has worked well in the HBase community.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Karthik Kambatla <ka...@cloudera.com> wrote: > As I proposed in the other thread, how about we adopting the following > model: > > x.y.1 releases have all Blocker, Critical, Major bug fixes applied to the > next minor release. > x.y.2 releases have all Blocker, Critical bug fixes applied to the next > minor release. > x.y.3 releases have all Blocker bug fixes applied to next minor release. > > Here I am assuming there are no security-fix-only or other urgent releases. > > We could apply this approach for 2.7.x onwards, and do an adhoc 2.6 > release. > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < > vino...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > > > Yeah, I started a thread while back on this one ( > > http://markmail.org/message/sbykjn5xgnksh6wg) and had many offline > > discussions re 2.6.1. > > > > The biggest problem I found offline was about what bug-fixes are > > acceptable and what aren’t for everyone wishing to consume 2.6.1. Given > the > > number of bug-fixes that went into 2.7.x and into branch-2.8, figuring > out > > a set of patches that is acceptable for everyone is a huge challenge > which > > kind of stalled my attempts. > > > > Thanks > > +Vinod > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 2015, at 8:57 AM, Sangjin Lee <sjl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Strong +1 for having a 2.6.1 release. I understand Vinod has been > trying > > to > > > get that effort going but it's been stalled a little bit. It would be > > good > > > to rekindle that effort. > > > > > > Companies with big hadoop 2.x deployments (including mine) have always > > > tried to stabilize a 2.x release by testing/collecting/researching > > critical > > > issues on the release. Each would come up with its own set of fixes to > > > backport. We would also communicate it via offline channels. During the > > > hadoop summit, we thought it would be great if we all came together and > > > create a public stability/bugfix release on top of 2.x (2.6.1 for 2.6 > for > > > example) with all the critical issues fixed. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Sangjin > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Tsuyoshi Ozawa <oz...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Thank you for the notification. Trying to back port bug fixes. > > >> > > >> - Tsuyoshi > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> > > wrote: > > >>> Hi Hadoopers! > > >>> > > >>> Over in HBase we've been discussing the impact of our dependencies on > > our > > >>> downstream users. As our most fundamental dependency, Hadoop plays a > > big > > >>> role in the operational cost of running an HBase instance. > > >>> > > >>> Currently the HBase 1.y release line supports Hadoop 2.4, 2.5, and > > >> 2.6[1]. > > >>> We don't drop Hadoop minor release lines in minor releases so we are > > >>> unlikely remove anything from this set until HBase 2.0, probably at > the > > >> end > > >>> of 2015 / start of 2016 (and currently we plan to continue supporting > > at > > >>> least 2.4 for HBase 2.0 [2]). Lately we've been discussing updating > our > > >>> shipped binaries to Hadoop 2.6, following some stability testing by > > part > > >> of > > >>> our community[3]. Unfortunately, 2.6.0 in particular has a couple of > > bugs > > >>> that could destroy HBase clusters should users decide to turn on HDFS > > >>> encryption[4]. Our installation instructions tell folks to replace > > these > > >>> jars with the version of Hadoop they are actually running, but not > all > > >>> users follow those instructions so we want to minimize the pain for > > them. > > >>> > > >>> Regular maintenance releases are key to keeping operational burdens > low > > >> for > > >>> our downstream users; we don't want them to be forced to choose > between > > >>> living with broken systems and stomaching the risk of upgrades across > > >>> minor/major version numbers. Looking back over the three > aforementioned > > >>> Hadoop versions, 2.6 hasn't had a patch release since 2.6.0 came out > in > > >> Nov > > >>> 2014, when 2.5 had its last patch release as well. Hadoop 2.4 looks > to > > >> be a > > >>> year without a release[5]. On our discussion of shipping Hadoop 2.6 > > >>> binaries, one of your PMC members mentioned that with continued work > on > > >> the > > >>> 2.7 line y'all weren't planning any additional releases of the > earlier > > >>> minor versions[6]. > > >>> > > >>> The HBase community requests that Hadoop pick up making bug-fix-only > > >> patch > > >>> releases again on a regular schedule[7]. Preferably on the 2.6 line > and > > >>> preferably monthly. We realize that given the time gap since 2.6.0 it > > >> will > > >>> likely take a big to get 2.6.1 together, but after that it should > take > > >> much > > >>> less effort to continue. > > >>> > > >>> [1]: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop > > >>> [2]: http://s.apache.org/ReP > > >>> [3]: HBASE-13339 > > >>> [4]: HADOOP-11674 and HADOOP-11710 > > >>> [5]: http://hadoop.apache.org/releases.html > > >>> [6]: http://s.apache.org/MTY > > >>> [7]: http://s.apache.org/ViP > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Sean > > >> > > > > > > > -- > Karthik Kambatla > Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc. > -------------------------------------------- > http://five.sentenc.es > -- Sean
