Hi, It's not a ton of work once you have done it, but the first time it can take some time.
1) Making sure we have the changes we said we would have in this release a) This release was contingent on a JIRA b) Ensuring the FIXED IN field in JIRA is correct 2) Executing the instructions here http://mrunit.apache.org/pmc/how_to_release.html Since we are a smaller project #1 is pretty easy. For projects like Hadoop #1 is a huge undertaking. For us, the real work is setting up your GPG keys and getting maven to deploy the jars correctly. Everything outside of environmental conditions *should* be documented in the release page. Since we are doing an incompatible change, we want to make sure the release notes reflect this. We also typically write a blog article (https://blogs.apache.org/mrunit/) and then ask Cloudera to re-post. In the past this has been about publicity for the project but this time it's probably a little more important due to the incompatibility. Brock On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Dave Beech <d...@paraliatech.com> wrote: > Hi Brock - what's involved? I'm relatively new to the Apache process > but am willing to give it a go. > > Cheers, > Dave > > On 26 September 2012 16:18, Brock Noland <br...@cloudera.com> wrote: >> OK great, it sounds like the release is on! Does anyone want to be the >> Release Manager? I am more than willing to be the RM if no one else >> is interested, but as I have done it a few time times I won't feel too >> bad if someone else wants to. ;) >> >> Brock >> >> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Jim Donofrio <donofrio...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I wont -1 it but I wont +1 it either. I would rather save major revision >>> changes for more drastic api changes but we need to cut this release so I >>> wont get in the way. Lets cut a release candidate on Oct 1 as we talked >>> about before. >>> >>> >>> On 09/24/2012 04:55 AM, James Kinley wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 to major release with MRUNIT-138. >>>> >>>> James. >>>> >>>> On 24 Sep 2012, at 09:21, Dave Beech <dbe...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Brock >>>>> Same here - I would be happy to see a major version release with >>>>> MRUNIT-138 included. >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Dave >>>>> >>>>> On 24 September 2012 07:35, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <jar...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Brock, >>>>>> thank you for your summary. I'm fine with the idea and I won't -1 it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jarcec >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 07:48:16AM -0500, Brock Noland wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It feels like we approaching a consensus on that if we include >>>>>>> MRUNIT-138, which is backwards incompatible but an improved user API, >>>>>>> we should bump the major version. Assuming MRUNIT-138 is included, is >>>>>>> there anyone that would -1 a release with the 1.0 designation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brock >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Brock Noland <br...@cloudera.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree that the changes in this release are not nearly as substantial >>>>>>>> as handling the Tool interface but I do they are major improvements. >>>>>>>> For example, we now allow users to specify many input key/values and >>>>>>>> have distributed cache support. For quick reference: >>>>>>>> http://s.apache.org/NQY >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Brock >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Jim Donofrio <donofrio...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes graduation has nothing to do with the quality or state of the >>>>>>>>> code, >>>>>>>>> graduation is all about community and should not influence a release >>>>>>>>> number. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I agree that 1.0 would signal a breaking change but 1.0 should also >>>>>>>>> signal >>>>>>>>> major improvements, api changes, new features. I dont think this >>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>> contains any drastic features. I think we should continue in the 0.* >>>>>>>>> versions for awhile until we add major new features such as Tool >>>>>>>>> support. At >>>>>>>>> that time you can change the package names to org.apache.mrunit and >>>>>>>>> go to >>>>>>>>> 1.0. I would rather not become like Firefox or Chrome and do major >>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>> number changes on every release. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 09/13/2012 06:31 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I do have similar reasoning here: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1.0 - in case that we're breaking backward compatibility >>>>>>>>>> 0.10 - in case that we're not breaking backward compatibility >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I personally do not see graduation of the project important enough >>>>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>>> version to jump to next major. We've recently graduated sqoop and >>>>>>>>>> flume and >>>>>>>>>> remained on the same major version without any issues. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But I'll support next reason no matter the final version. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jarcec >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:41:08PM +0200, Bertrand Dechoux wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And I would say the same in a reverse way. >>>>>>>>>>> If we do a 1.0 release, all required incompatible changes should be >>>>>>>>>>> done >>>>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>>> that there would be no need to drag unneeded deprecated stuff from >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> 1.0 >>>>>>>>>>> up to the 2.0. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For me, the question is whether we should break compatibility for >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> next >>>>>>>>>>> release. If yes, then break all which is necessary for a clean >>>>>>>>>>> future. If >>>>>>>>>>> not, then assure full compatibility. If yes, it should be 1.0. If >>>>>>>>>>> not, it >>>>>>>>>>> should be 0.10. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The following question is then : if we keep compatibility what will >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> next release ship with? Is a release worth the new features/bug >>>>>>>>>>> fixes? On >>>>>>>>>>> that point, I am not knowledgeable enough to answer. I would accept >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> decisions of the more 'ancient' devs. But it should indeed be >>>>>>>>>>> discussed. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bertrand >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Wei, Jianbin <jianb...@paypal.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If it is an incompatible change in non-trivial way, I would strong >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> favor a 1.0 release. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jianbin >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 12, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Brock Noland wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> OK, we have the following viewpoints with supporting reasons: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 0.10 - supported by a number of people (reasons: none given, 1.0 >>>>>>>>>>>> should be used for Tool interface support) >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0 - supported by a number of people (reasons: none given, recent >>>>>>>>>>>> graduation, due to the incompatible change) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I tilt towards the 1.0 release due to the incompatible changes but >>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> am not strongly committed to that viewpoint. I am strongly >>>>>>>>>>>> committed >>>>>>>>>>>> to a release whatever the number! :) It would seem easy enough to >>>>>>>>>>>> vote >>>>>>>>>>>> on the matter but I think votes can become divisive. I have seen >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> in the Hadoop community when voting is used to resolve issues it >>>>>>>>>>>> ends >>>>>>>>>>>> up much like the state of US politics. As such, I'd prefer to >>>>>>>>>>>> settle >>>>>>>>>>>> this via discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We have all stated our preferences but not our convictions. Is >>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>> anyone who strongly in favor of / opposed to a 0.10 release? Is >>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>> anyone who is strongly in favor of / opposed to a 1.0 release? If >>>>>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>>>> please state your reasoning. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Brock >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Wei, Jianbin >>>>>>>>>>>> <jianb...@paypal.com<mailto: >>>>>>>>>>>> jianb...@paypal.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Agree with Dave that when it becomes incompatible, the major >>>>>>>>>>>> version >>>>>>>>>>>> number should be increased. Major changes also warrant a major >>>>>>>>>>>> number >>>>>>>>>>>> change. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jianbin >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 7, 2012, at 8:06 AM, Brock Noland wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As I understand it, if we implement >>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRUNIT-138 as described in >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> JIRA. That is, all the drivers keep state of the inputs, we can >>>>>>>>>>>> undeprecate the methods depcrecated in >>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRUNIT-64? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Brock >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Jim Donofrio >>>>>>>>>>>> <donofrio...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:donofrio...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> I think we need to keep those deprecated methods around for >>>>>>>>>>>> awhile, no >>>>>>>>>>>> reason to anger users. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/07/2012 08:35 AM, Bertrand Dechoux wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then the question is about when/if the compatibility should be >>>>>>>>>>>> broken. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRUNIT-139 would be quite >>>>>>>>>>>> easy >>>>>>>>>>>> without the history of MRUnit and the @Deprecated.... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Dave Beech >>>>>>>>>>>> <d...@paraliatech.com<mailto: >>>>>>>>>>>> d...@paraliatech.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think this depends on what we decide to do about MRUNIT-138. We >>>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>>> discussing an incompatible change, and if we do decide to do that >>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>>> the version number should increase to 1.0.0 to reflect this (and >>>>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> fact that this is the first version since graduation). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If we later go ahead with the API rewrite (MRUNIT-69), this could >>>>>>>>>>>> form >>>>>>>>>>>> MRUnit 2.0.0! Would line up nicely with Hadoop's own numbering >>>>>>>>>>>> strategy >>>>>>>>>>>> ;) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 September 2012 07:54, James Kinley >>>>>>>>>>>> <kin...@cloudera.com<mailto: >>>>>>>>>>>> kin...@cloudera.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for the 1.0.0 release. I think it's a good idea to increase the >>>>>>>>>>>> major >>>>>>>>>>>> version number considering the recent graduation and the included >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> changes. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Sep 2012, at 07:29, "Wei, Jianbin" >>>>>>>>>>>> <jianb...@paypal.com<mailto: >>>>>>>>>>>> jianb...@paypal.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> My bad, 0.9.0 --> 0.10.0 is also version increase. My eyes are >>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> to have a 2 digits minor version yet. However, I still prefer a >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> one-digit >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> minor version as most software do that in practice. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jianbin >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 6, 2012, at 10:41 PM, Bertrand Dechoux wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure to understand "It is not good to backtracking >>>>>>>>>>>> version.". >>>>>>>>>>>> Does it mean that the version after graduating should show the >>>>>>>>>>>> 'step'? >>>>>>>>>>>> Is that a common way to do it? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not taking into account the graduation, I would also favor the >>>>>>>>>>>> "0.10.0" >>>>>>>>>>>> instead of "1.0.0". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bertrand >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - >>>>>>>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - >>>>>>>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Bertrand Dechoux >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - >>>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - >>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/ >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/ -- Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/
