Having just finished the 1.2.0 release, I have now taken the time to carefully read this entire thread. (For a more enjoyable experience, I'm practicing walking on hot coals next week :-)
I think something got lost in the argumentation: First of all, what I understand is that 1. Arun is being asked to take his progression of 2.0.x-alpha releases to a new 2.1.x (perhaps 2.1.x-beta?) line 2. Konst is being allowed to repurpose the 2.0.x line, starting with 2.0.5, into a stabilization line for the subset of Hadoop-2 features already in 2.0.4-alpha. [I say "allowed" because, while any committer can make a new branch and propose releases from it, Konst has proposed to take over an existing sequence of branches, for which a dedicated and long-term Release Manager has previously proposed a well-understood sequence of releases; see http://s.apache.org/BmM ] Here's the thing that got lost, and I think we better clarify: Additional features that everybody wants in Hadoop-2 still remain to be added. We KNOW these will result in non-backward-compatible API changes. So by trying to do a stability line of code now, we are terminating the effort to achieve backward-compatibility in Hadoop-2 APIs. Did this community really intend to vote for that? Because that's what we've now got. --Matt On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Konstantin Shvachko <[email protected]>wrote: > Hello Arun, > > Please accept my apologies for what could have been considered as a rude > response. > Didn't mean any sort of incivility. > Please attribute my emotional response to the onus of explaining over and > over again that > - I am not opposed to the features > - not forcing a release profile on you > - but rather propose a more conservative release sequence with a focus on > stability. > in the last two weeks. > > If the version rename we agreed upon earlier is still valid, please > proceed. > I am blocked on the rename of artifacts. > > I presume we can move this to dev. > > Thanks, > --Konst > > > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Konstantin Shvachko > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Sounds like you are having fun, Arun. > > 2.0.5 is explicitly in the subject line for this vote. > > No worries I'll fix that. > > > > You should stop assuming - it's in nobody interests - and start reading. > > --Konst > > > > > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Arun C Murthy <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> > >> On May 14, 2013, at 11:04 AM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: > >> > >> >> I can point you towards a set of fixes I think important for YARN > >> > (nodemanager, security etc.). > >> > > >> > That would be very much appreciated. > >> > > >> >> I'll do the 2.1 series by renaming the planned 2.0.5 to 2.1. > >> > > >> > Thanks. > >> > > >> > >> Thanks. I've copied branch-2.0.4-alpha as a new branch-2.0-alpha branch. > >> > >> This way you can start with a clean slate. Good luck. > >> > >> As I noted before in the thread, the APIs in branch-2.0-alpha will > remain > >> incompatible with branch-2. > >> > >> thanks, > >> Arun > > > > > > >
