Yup. Letting people who want to contribute, do so a good meme! A stable next release would be great. But orgs do sustaining on stable code releases for a lot of very good reasons.
A next Hadoop 21+ of this code quality is almost a year away in my opinion. --- E14 - via iPhone On Jan 14, 2011, at 10:05 AM, "Jakob Homan" <[email protected]> wrote: >> On another thread discussing hadoop-0.20-append as a separate branch, most >> people agreed that new features shouldn't be added to 0.20, now we have a >> major feature and we are all gung ho for it.. > > Not all are. I'm against it for the all the same reasons I was > against 20 append. This is also being used as a wedge to get the > append work in as .200. My position is that every iota effort of > releasing another 20 branch is an iota not spent on getting us a > kick-ass 22. 20 was great, and we had a lot of wonderful times > together, but it's time to move on and see other releases. > > But, this is a volunteer effort, and if others want to put the effort > in, they're free to do so. > -jg > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Nigel Daley <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yup, I'll say it again. The process ain't perfect but it's good enough IMO. >> Thank you Yahoo! for your contribution. >> >> Clearly these patch will need review before commit when going into trunk. >> >> Let's move on to 0.22. >> >> Nige >> >> On Jan 14, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: >> >>> I tend to second most of Ian's points here. >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 06:14, Ian Holsman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> (with my Apache hat on) >>>> I'm -0.5 on doing this as one big mega-patch and not including append (as >>>> opposed to a series of smaller patches). >>> >>> #1: we are creating a precedent of a "brain-dump" here. Although, it >>> isn't the first one in the history of OSS. Infamous Apple "patch" to >>> OpenBSD is another one ;) >>> >>> #2: How to spell 'back door' any one? >>> >>> #5: "almost 10 internal releases" Arun has mentioned above might be, >>> perhaps, considered as a great quality control effort. Also, not to >>> mention virtual impossibility to create a test plan to validate a >>> giant features patch. >>> >>>> BTW, I'd like to point out a discrepancy here: >>>> >>>> On another thread discussing hadoop-0.20-append as a separate branch, most >>>> people agreed that new features shouldn't be added to 0.20, now we have a >>>> major feature and we are all gung ho for it.. >>> >>> And this ^^^ >>> >>> But, hey I guess it's totally worth it! >>> Cos >>> >>>> --Ian >>>> >>>> On Jan 14, 2011, at 2:21 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Stack wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> (Man, it was looking good there for a second when 0.20.100 was about >>>>>> security+append!) >>>>>> >>>>>> Good luck w/ the release Arun. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>>>> We might be following your 0.20.100 with a 0.20.200 append. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Super! >>>>> >>>>> Arun >>>> >>>> >> >>
