On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:47PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: > Yes, Vinod. Thanks for understanding. > > The plan is not to add any new features in 2.0.5. Only API changes to allow > potential feature backports in subsequent releases. > I will rename branch-2.0-alpha Arun created to branch-2.0.5 (right after > this), make changes on it, then release. Similar to branch-0.23 model. > > Renaming of current 2.0.5-beta to 2.1 is great. > Do I understand correctly that renaming current 2.0.5-beta to 2.1 is a > change in CHANGES.txt and renaming Jira versions, since 2.0.5-beta branch > has not been carved? > > Guys, please raise your voice to volunteer for the RM role? I will take on > it if nobody wants it. > I guess it will take a day or two to sort things out after the vote.
I can do RM'ing for this release. I would highly appreciate any help from anyone who's interested in the stabilization of 2.0.x line of Hadoop. Thanks, Cos > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Have no idea what you meant there. > > > > Even though several others noted that it isn't clear what is being voted > > on, trying to make sense out of it, it seems that > > - you don't want any new features at all in 2.0.5. > > - The originally planned 2.0.5 *has* already got new features which go > > against this vote result. > > > > So I think, Arun proposed that we rename the originally planned 2.0.5 to > > 2.1 and you said yes. Arun then he went ahead and copied 2.0.4-alpha to > > 2.0-alpha where it can be 'stabilized'. > > > > And then this. > > > > Please make it clear. Unfortunately there are those who have the onus of > > reviewing/committing some 'features' to branch-2. Please let us know what > > is okay. > > > > Will start committing to branch-2 unless I hear otherwise. > > > > The other concern is about merging patches into this 'stability-branch'. > > Clearly the vote doesn't tell who the RM is and it isn't clear who is doing > > it. Till that happens, I'll skip merging patches to branch-2.0-alpha branch > > - whether the patch is a feature or a bug needs to be negotiated with the > > RM *when in doubt*. > > > > Thanks, > > +Vinod > > > > On May 14, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Konstantin Shvachko 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 > > > >
