+1 for the proposed plan. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:09 AM, Jason Lowe <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 for incrementing the required Hadoop version from 2.7 as long as we > continue to push bugfixes to the 0.9 line for a while. We currently > have a "hadoop28" profile in Tez which is mostly compatible with > Hadoop 3.x, but it does not get much testing. There is no release > vehicle for it, and it does not even get tested from the precommit > build. Promoting this or a 3.x profile to the main build is the most > straightforward way to get it tested and released in an > easy-to-consume form. > > This does mean we would need to maintain two release lines for a > while, at least until users and downstream projects migrate away from > Hadoop 2.7. We've done two lines before (even three, if we consider > the days of 0.9.x, 0.8.x, and 0.7.x all co-existing), and in this case > I think the cost of maintaining those two lines is worth it to move > the project forward as the stack migrates to Hadoop 3.x. > > Jason > > > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 7:16 PM, Eric Wohlstadter > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I’d like to propose that we move towards aligning the Tez master branch > with support for Hadoop 3+ only. > > A separate branch and distribution (e.g. on Maven Central) would be > created to maintain the 0.9.x line with support for Hadoop 2.7+. > > > > This will help ensure that Tez can continue to move forward with other > progress in the greater Hadoop community. > > Since Hadoop 3 is not backward compatible with Hadoop 2, my opinion is > that it is too difficult for Tez to maintain such backward compatibility > > > > > > * Tez master branch would support only Hadoop 3+ moving forward > > * Bug fixes would be required to be pushed to both to master and the > 0.9.x line > > * Major feature or performance improvements would be required to be > pushed to both master and the 0.9.x line (unless they require Hadoop 3+) > > * Minor feature or performance improvements can be pushed only to > master > > * A new release with Hadoop 3+ only support would be placed on high > priority (possibly 0.10?) > > * At a minimum the issues under TEZ-3903 would be required > > > > Please help to provide any feedback or comments about this unofficial > proposal. > > This is not an official vote but it would help to get people’s > thoughts/questions or unofficial (+1, -1). > > >
