Happy new year folks! I'm glad to see that we are down to the last couple of blockers I hope we can resolve in the next 24-hrs or so.
Once done, I'll create a branch-2.0.3-alpha to unblock branch-2 for commits targeted towards the next release, create the new fix-versions in jira and spin the RC. Committers - after the branch is created, please use only the new fix-version (2.0.4) and check with me before you commit to branch-2.0.3-alpha. Thanks. As always, I'd appreciate help to resolve any unexpected surprises and also to help verify the RC. Hopefully we can start the new year with a great release, there are lots of goodies in 2.0.3-alpha. thanks, Arun On Dec 18, 2012, at 9:00 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > As Sid responded I think we can move off alpha once we fix > YARN-142/MAPREDUCE-4067. There are other apis we should clean up, but none as > egregious as those two. > > Someone on my team is starting on it as we speak and I believe we can get it > done sometime in Jan... thus targetting 2.0.4 (as a beta?). By then we'll > also have wider rollouts of YARN and would have fixed some more issues we've > seen at very high scale deployments at Y!. Sounds like the right time to do a > beta release to me. > > Arun > > On Dec 19, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Aaron T. Myers wrote: > >> Hey Arun, >> >> Awesome to see we're almost down to zero blockers. What are your thoughts >> on removing the "alpha" label from the upcoming release? It seems to me >> from the earlier discussion that most folks feel that we're at the point >> where the interfaces are sufficiently stable to warrant it. >> >> Aaron >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Arun C Murthy <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Nearly there: >>> http://s.apache.org/hadoop-2-blockers >>> >>> YARN-217 should be easy, I'd also like to get in YARN-253. >>> >>> Arun >>> >>> On Dec 19, 2012, at 1:15 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: >>> >>>> Any news on how this is progressing? Some folks in this thread below >>>> inquired about getting this release out around the New Year timeframe, >>>> but it looks like YARN-117 subtasks have gone pretty quiet. We all >>>> know how long lifecycle changes can take to get pushed through ;-) >>>> >>>> -Todd >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Steve Loughran >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> I want to make some changes to the lifecycle of a yarn service (in a >>>>> backwards compatible way). >>>>> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-117 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. formal state machine model with stop state idempotent and >>> entry-able >>>>> from any state >>>>> 2. waiting/blocked state a service can enter when waiting for >>> something >>>>> else >>>>> 3. an alternate base class that does the state model checks before >>>>> executing any state change functions -currently its done at >>>>> end-of-operation in the super() calls. >>>>> 4. gradual move of services to the stricter base class. >>>>> >>>>> With a new base class nothing will break (as the move can be done >>>>> case-by-case, leaving the heavily subclassed ones alone); the state >>> model >>>>> extensions & formalisation would be visible but not used. >>>>> >>>>> I don't want to hold anything up, because I need more testing of things >>>>> before this is ready for review. I just want to get the fixes in before >>> it >>>>> ships >>>>> >>>>> On 19 November 2012 16:22, 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Todd Lipcon >>>> Software Engineer, Cloudera >>> >>> -- >>> Arun C. Murthy >>> Hortonworks Inc. >>> http://hortonworks.com/ >>> >>> >>> > > -- > Arun C. Murthy > Hortonworks Inc. > http://hortonworks.com/ > > -- Arun C. Murthy Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/
