Lohit, There are some outstanding blockers and I'm still awaiting the QJM merge. Feel free to watch the blocker list: http://s.apache.org/e1J
Arun On Dec 3, 2012, at 10:02 AM, lohit wrote: > Hello Hadoop Release managers, > Any update on this? > > Thanks, > Lohit > > 2012/11/20 Tom White <[email protected]> > >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Siddharth Seth >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> YARN-142/MAPREDUCE-4067 should ideally be fixed before we commit to API >>> backward compatibility. Also, from the recent YARN meetup - there seemed >> to >>> be a requirement to change the AM-RM protocol for container requests. In >>> this case, I believe it's OK to not have all functionality implemented, >> as >>> long as the protocol itself can represent the requirements. >> >> I agree. Do you think we can make these changes before removing the >> 'alpha' label, i.e. in 2.0.3? If that's not possible for the container >> requests change, then we could mark AMRMProtocol (or related classes) >> as @Evolving. Another alternative would be to introduce a new >> interface. >> >>> However, as >>> Bobby pointed out, given the current adoption by other projects - >>> incompatible changes at this point can be problematic and needs to be >>> figured out. >> >> We have a mechanism for this already. If something is marked as >> @Evolving it can change incompatibly between minor versions - e.g. >> 2.0.x to 2.1.0. If it is @Stable then it can only change on major >> versions, e.g. 2.x.y to 3.0.0. Let's make sure we are happy with the >> annotations - and willing to support them at the indicated level - >> before we remove the 'alpha' label. Of course, we strive not to change >> APIs without a very good reason, but if we do we should do so within >> the guidelines so that users know what to expect. >> >> Cheers, >> Tom >> >>> >>> Thanks >>> - Sid >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Robert Evans <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>>> I am OK with removing the alpha assuming that we think that the APIs are >>>> stable enough that we are willing to truly start maintaining backwards >>>> compatibility on them within 2.X. From what I have seen I think that >> they >>>> are fairly stable and I think there is enough adoption by other projects >>>> right now that breaking backwards compatibility would be problematic. >>>> >>>> --Bobby Evans >>>> >>>> On 11/16/12 11:34 PM, "Stack" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Aaron T. Myers <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>>> Hi Arun, >>>>>> >>>>>> Given that the 2.0.3 release is intended to reflect the growing >>>>>> stability >>>>>> of YARN, and the QJM work will be included in 2.0.3 which provides a >>>>>> complete HDFS HA solution, I think it's time we consider removing the >>>>>> "-alpha" label from the release version. My preference would be to >>>>>> remove >>>>>> the label entirely, but we could also perhaps call it "-beta" or >>>>>> something. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think it fine after two minor releases undoing the '-alpha' suffix. >>>>> >>>>> If folks insist we next go to '-beta', I'd hope we'd travel all >>>>> remaining 22 letters of the greek alphabet before we 2.0.x. >>>>> >>>>> St.Ack >>>> >>>> >> > > > > -- > Have a Nice Day! > Lohit -- Arun C. Murthy Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/
