On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Jonathan Gray <jg...@facebook.com> wrote: >> My main concern is that this move will push back any release of the new >> master significantly. There are countless improvements in the codebase that >> came along with the rewrite, well beyond just zk transitions. But doing a >> production release in time for HW is probably the most important thing. >> > > IMO, we're almost there w/ the new master. I'd like to wait till > Thursday or Friday before making a call. > > Regards HW, we might consider pressing on with new master even if it > means we don't exactly line up a new master 0.89.x (or a 0.90.xRC) > release w/ HW. You fellas talking at HW can fudge it some if it comes > to that (We won't be the only ones. CDH3 will not be ready for HW > apparently).
CDH3b3 will be ready for Hadoop world, and we'd kind of like to freeze component versions at this point in the beta cycle. So if 0.90 is out, that would be great. We can certainly work with what we've got (20100830 minus ZK assignment) but if a production-worth new master isn't ready by the end of October or so we'll probably push that out til CDH4. > I'm thinking we can afford to take such a position > because if someone wants durable hbase now, they can run with the > SU-prod 0.89.x that J-D is about to put up. > This is going to be an official Apache release, right? I guess my question is: if it's stable and usable for production, why call it a "development release"? If we're recommending it for all new users over and above 0.20.6, then it seems like this should be deemed stable (ie even release number). > Putting off new master till 0.92 means it'll be maybe 6 months before > it appears. During this time we'll be paying a high price keeping up > two disparate branches -- TRUNK w/ new master and the release branch > -- shoe-horning patches to fit both. > If you guys are running 20100830 in production, won't you be doing that anyway? Assumedly we'd treat this 0.90 as "no new features" and put the new features into 0.91.x leading up to 0.92? > We also confuse the 0.90 'message' given we've been talking about new > master at HUGs and here on the lists with a good while now. True. The question is whether we prefer to slip time or slip scope. In my opinion slipping scope is better - it's open source and people understand that schedules slip. Keeping strong release momentum up helps adoption and will get people off 0.20.6 which no one really wants to support anymore. -Todd -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
