Thanks Kos. Archived mailing lists come in handy. Many thanks to Apache to have http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-general/.
- milind -- Milind Bhandarkar [email protected] +1-650-776-3167 On 5/6/11 11:57 PM, "Konstantin Boudnik" <[email protected]> wrote: >Wow! Great compilation, Milind! Very nice to have the sequence of events >handy. > >Thanks, > Cos > >On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 23:55, Milind Bhandarkar ><[email protected]> wrote: >> [I am not on PMC, but seeing that PMC may be busy with other issues, I >> will try to answer your questions.] >> >> Eric, >> >> I think the thread >> >>"http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-general/201101.mbox/%3C1 >>8C >> [email protected]%3E" will answer your >> questions. Here is the timeline as I see it: >> >> 1. Arun proposes to create a release from the security patchset. Says >>Doug >> has proposed this earlier >> >>(http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-general/201004.mbox/%3C4 >>BD >> [email protected]%3E April 23, 2010) ("This has been proposed >> earlier by Doug and did not get far due to concerns about the effect >>this >> would have on development on trunk.") (August 24, 2010) >> >> 2. Lots of +1s, between August 24 to August 30 2010. One particular >> comment is from Tom White: "I think it would be good to have a shared >>0.20 >> Apache security branch. >> Since security isn't in 0.21, and the 0.22 release is a some way off >> as you mention, this would be useful for folks who want the security >> features sooner (and want to use an Apache release)." >> >> 3. Arun volunteers to create a release (August 30, 2010) >> >> 4. Doug reminds Arun. (October 15, 2010) >> >> 5. Arun apologizes for not creating a branch because he was busy, >>because >> he had a baby. (January 11, 2011) >> >> 6. Lots of discussion about what to call it (the release, not the baby, >> although I had a good laugh at Patrick Angeles's email: "You're gonna >>call >> your kid 20.100?" ;-). >> >> 7. Arun proposes to call it 0.20.100: "I'm open to suggestions - how >>about >> something like 20.100 to show that it's a big jump? Anything else?" Jan >> 12, 2011 >> >> 8. Among others, Eli says: "+1 on 0.20.x (where x is a J > 3)" on Jan >> 12, 2011. >> >> So, as you can see, even if this release is called 0.20.x, the community >> agreed that these are valuable patches to have, and despite backward >> incompatibility, still have them in minor release. >> >> - milind >> >> -- >> Milind Bhandarkar >> [email protected] >> +1-650-776-3167 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 5/6/11 11:14 PM, "Eric Sammer" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>On May 6, 2011, at 4:53 AM, Steve Loughran <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>I understand Eli's concerns that putting stuff in there that hasn't gone >>>into trunk yet is danger. However, as the team makes no guarantees of >>>100% >>>compatibility between releases, I don't think it's critical. It's just >>>something that needs to be addressed -which can be done after this >>>release >>>has shipped. >>> >>> >>>I was under the impression that the community has been extremely strict >>>about compatibility between minor version bumps in the past. I though >>>there >>>were specific guarantees and that was one of the reasons certain >>>behaviors >>>have persisted so long. >>> >>>Does this mean API changes can be made in minor releases and it can be >>>made >>>backward compatible in future releases? That seems very, very counter to >>>various conversations that have happened in the past. I'm of the mind >>>that >>>we should continue to promise what we've always promised and if that's >>>changing, let's make with the refactoring party! >>> >>>Can some PMC'ers clarify this one for me? >>> >>>TIA. >>>Sammer >>> >>> >>> >>>-Steve >> >>
