The general rule sounds good to me.
> "any fix in 2.x.y to be there in all 2.b.c releases (while b>=x) that
get out after 2.x.y release date"
+1
> I would prefer this rule only applies on critical/blocker fixes, but
not applies on minor/trivial issues.
+1
Thanks,
Akira
On 12/29/15 23:50, Junping Du wrote:
I am +1 with pulling all of these tickets into 2.7.2.
- For “any fix in 2.6.3 to be there in all releases that get out after 2.6.3
release date”
Shall we conclude this as a general rule - "any fix in 2.x.y to be there in all 2.b.c
releases (while b>=x) that get out after 2.x.y release date"? I am generally fine
with this, but just feel it sounds to set too strong restrictions among branches. Some fixes
could be trivial (test case fix, etc.) enough to deserve more flexibility. I would prefer
this rule only applies on critical/blocker fixes, but not applies on minor/trivial issues.
Just 2 cents.
Thanks,
Junping
________________________________
From: Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <vino...@apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2015 12:47 AM
To: Junping Du
Cc: mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org;
common-dev@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.2 RC1
I retract my -1. I think we will need to discuss this a bit more.
Beyond those two tickets, there are a bunch more (totaling to 16) that are in 2.6.3
but *not* in 2.7.2. See this:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=key%20in%20%28HADOOP-12526%2CHADOOP-12413%2CHADOOP-11267%2CHADOOP-10668%2CHADOOP-10134%2CYARN-4434%2CYARN-4365%2CYARN-4348%2CYARN-4344%2CYARN-4326%2CYARN-4241%2CYARN-2859%2CMAPREDUCE-6549%2CMAPREDUCE-6540%2CMAPREDUCE-6377%2CMAPREDUCE-5883%2CHDFS-9431%2CHDFS-9289%2CHDFS-8615%29%20and%20fixVersion%20!%3D%202.7.0<https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=key%20in%20(HADOOP-12526,HADOOP-12413,HADOOP-11267,HADOOP-10668,HADOOP-10134,YARN-4434,YARN-4365,YARN-4348,YARN-4344,YARN-4326,YARN-4241,YARN-2859,MAPREDUCE-6549,MAPREDUCE-6540,MAPREDUCE-6377,MAPREDUCE-5883,HDFS-9431,HDFS-9289,HDFS-8615)%20and%20fixVersion%20!=%202.7.0>
Two options here, depending on the importance of ‘causality' between 2.6.x and
2.7.x lines.
- Ship 2.7.2 as we voted on here
- Pull these 16 tickets into 2.7.2 and roll a new RC
What do people think? Do folks expect “any fix in 2.6.3 to be there in all
releases that get out after 2.6.3 release date (December 16th)”?
Thanks
+Vinod
On Dec 23, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
<vino...@apache.org<mailto:vino...@apache.org>> wrote:
Sigh. Missed this.
To retain causality ("any fix in 2.6.3 will be there in all releases that got
out after 2.6.3”), I’ll get these patches in.
Reverting my +1, and casting -1 for the RC myself.
Will spin a new RC, this voting thread is marked dead.
Thanks
+Vinod
On Dec 22, 2015, at 8:24 AM, Junping Du
<j...@hortonworks.com<mailto:j...@hortonworks.com>> wrote:
However, when I look at our commit log and CHANGES.txt, I found something we
are missing:
1. HDFS-9470 and YARN-4424 are missing from the 2.7.2 branch and RC1 tag.
2. HADOOP-5323, HDFS-8767 are missing in CHANGE.txt
