Thanks Eric for the comments - regarding your concerns, I feel the pros
outweigh the cons. To me, the chances of patch releases on 2.10.x are much
higher than a new 2.11 minor release. (There didn't seem to be many people
outside of our company who expressed interest in getting new features to
branch-2 prior to the 2.10.0 release.) Even now, a few weeks after 2.10.0
release, there's 29 patches that have gone into branch-2 and 9 in
branch-2.10, so it's already diverged quite a bit.

In any case, we can always reverse this decision if we really need to, by
recreating branch-2. But this proposal would reduce a lot of confusion IMO.

Jonathan Hung


On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 11:41 AM epa...@apache.org <epa...@apache.org>
wrote:

> Thanks Jonathan for opening the discussion.
>
> I am not in favor of this proposal. 2.10 was very recently released, and
> moving to 2.10 will take some time for the community. It seems premature to
> make a decision at this point that there will never be a need for a 2.11
> release.
>
> -Eric
>
>
>  On Thursday, November 14, 2019, 8:51:59 PM CST, Jonathan Hung <
> jyhung2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Given the release of 2.10.0, and the fact that it's intended to be a bridge
> release to Hadoop 3.x [1], I'm proposing we make 2.10.x the last minor
> release line in branch-2. Currently, the main issue is that there's many
> fixes going into branch-2 (the theoretical 2.11.0) that's not going into
> branch-2.10 (which will become 2.10.1), so the fixes in branch-2 will
> likely never see the light of day unless they are backported to
> branch-2.10.
>
> To do this, I propose we:
>
>   - Delete branch-2.10
>   - Rename branch-2 to branch-2.10
>   - Set version in the new branch-2.10 to 2.10.1-SNAPSHOT
>
> This way we get all the current branch-2 fixes into the 2.10.x release
> line. Then the commit chain will look like: trunk -> branch-3.2 ->
> branch-3.1 -> branch-2.10 -> branch-2.9 -> branch-2.8
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jonathan Hung
>
> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org/msg29479.html
>

Reply via email to