This strikes me as a reasonable (and, err, surprising-that-it's-necissary) request. +1
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 on making request. > > St.Ack > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On one of our open issues about Hadoop versions, one of the Hadoop PMC > > > members mentioned that the 2.6.z line wasn't planning any additional > > > releases[1]. > > > > > > I'd like us to request, as a downstream community, that the Hadoop > > project > > > plan for maintenance releases on this line given the non-production > > status > > > of 2.7.0, unevaluated quality of further 2.7 releases and the unknown > > > status of a 2.8 release. > > > > > > Right now, there's substantial evidence from our Elliot that we should > be > > > pushing our users from the 2.4/2.5 releases onto 2.6. At the moment, > > 2.6.0 > > > contains a couple of critical bugs that effectively prevent the use of > > HDFS > > > transparent encryption[2]. Now, that feature isn't needed but it's nice > > to > > > have as an operational alternative to our own implementation. And the > > > current bug _destroys_ HBase clusters, so the consequences for the > > curious > > > are severe. > > > > > > That specific issue aside, however, as a system that runs on top of > > Hadoop > > > we impose on our downstream users a dependency on that project. Regular > > > maintenance releases are critical to easing long term operational pain, > > so > > > we should proactively look out for them by prodding our less stable > > > upstream dependencies. > > > > > > > > > [1]: http://s.apache.org/MTY > > > [2]: HADOOP-11674 and HADOOP-11710 > > > > > > -- > > > Sean > > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
