Eric, Arun, I'd like to explicitly clarify one aspect of this branch and what you mean by 'release' -- it can have many meanings.
Are you asking to actually create an Apache release from this branch (binary & source)? Or, as I was assuming, simply commit all this code to this branch and leave it there without a formal release so others can role their own binary if they wish? Thanks, Nige On Jan 14, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Eric Baldeschwieler wrote: > 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>>
