-1 for option b. KDE did that with 4.0, and it caused a lot of confusion, frustration and occasional mocking, although it was very well known and documented that 4.0 series were still beta quality.
+1 for option a. I would image we can go with 2.0.x-alpha releases, and when we are ready to go stable, call it 2.1 release, wdyt? Enis On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Eli Collins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Arun C Murthy <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Yep, makes sense - I'll roll an rc0 for 2.0 after. > > > > > > However, we should consider whether HDFS protocols are 'ready' for us > to > > commit to them for the foreseeable future, my sense is that it's a tad > > early - particularly with auto-failover not complete. > > > > > > Thus, we have a couple of options: > > > a) Call the first release here as *2.0.0-alpha* version (lots of ASF > > projects do this). > > > b) Just go with 2.0.0 and deem 2.0.x or 2.1.x as the first stable > > release and fwd-compatible release later. > > > > > > Given this is a major release (unlike something obscure like > > hadoop-0.23.0) I'm inclined to go with a) i.e. hadoop-2.0.0-alpha. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > Agree that we're a little too early on the HDFS protocol side, think > > MR2 is probably in a similar boat wrt stability as well. > > > > +1 to option a, calling it hadoop-2.0.0-alpha seems most appropriate. > > > > Regarding protocols: > +1 to _not_ locking down "cluster-internal" wire compatibility at this > point. i.e we can break DN<->NN, or NN<->SBN, or Admin command -> NN > compatibility still. > +1 to locking down client wire compatibility with the release of 2.0. After > 2.0 is released I would like to see all 2.0.x clients continue to be > compatible. Now that we are protobuf-ified, I think this is doable. > Should we open a separate discussion thread for the above? > > Regarding version numbering: either of the proposals seems fine by me. > > -Todd > > > Arun > > > > > > On Apr 19, 2012, at 12:24 AM, Eli Collins wrote: > > > > > >> Hey Arun, > > >> > > >> This vote passed a week or so ago, let's make it official? > > >> > > >> Also, are you still planning to roll a hadoop-2.0.0-rc0 of branch-2 > > >> this week? I think we should do that soon, if you're not planning to > > >> do this holler and I'd be happy to. There's only 1 blocker left > > >> (http://bit.ly/I55LAd) and it's patch available, I think we should > > >> role an rc from branch-2 when it's merged. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Eli > > >> > > >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Arun C Murthy <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >>> 0.23.2 is just a small set of bug-fixes on top of 0.23.1 and doesn't > > have NN HA etc. > > >>> > > >>> As I've noted separately, I plan to put out a hadoop-2.0.0-rc0 in a > > couple weeks with NN HA, PB for HDFS etc. > > >>> > > >>> thanks, > > >>> Arun > > >>> > > >>> On Mar 29, 2012, at 3:55 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> What are the issues fixed / features added in 0.23.2 compared to > > 0.23.1 ? > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks > > >>>> > > >>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Arun C Murthy <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> I've created a release candidate for hadoop-0.23.2 that I would > like > > to > > >>>>> release. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> It is available at: > > http://people.apache.org/~acmurthy/hadoop-0.23.2-rc0/ > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The maven artifacts are available via repository.apache.org. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Please try the release and vote; the vote will run for the usual 7 > > days. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> thanks, > > >>>>> Arun > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -- > > >>>>> Arun C. Murthy > > >>>>> Hortonworks Inc. > > >>>>> http://hortonworks.com/ > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Arun C. Murthy > > >>> Hortonworks Inc. > > >>> http://hortonworks.com/ > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > -- > > > Arun C. Murthy > > > Hortonworks Inc. > > > http://hortonworks.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera >
