[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1161?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12484530
]
Doug Cutting commented on HADOOP-1161:
--------------------------------------
> I'd strongly vote for a code-freeze [ ... ]
I think "code freeze" might better be called "feature freeze", or just
"branch". I agree. This would be ideal. But whether we actually do this
depends on whether committers are willing to maintain two branches
simultaneously. The alternative is to simply to stall patches that add new
features until the release is complete. At this point, we only have two active
committers (Tom & me) whose employer permits them to actually commit, and this
adds to their burden. When we have more active committers this should become
easier to manage.
> Does the 72 hour vote start when the release candidate is created?
Yes. The release vote cannot commence until there's a signed binary to vote
on. We may have other votes prior to that, to decide, e.g., when to branch,
what patches should be applied where, and even when it's time to build a
release candidate. But the final vote that counts, and is required by the ASF,
is for a particular set of bits, not for, e.g., a svn tag.
> I do not like the idea of applying the same patch more than one place
This also worries me. I prefer the discipline of, when possible, applying
patches once (with a Jira bug ID in the commit message), then, in merge commit
messages, including both the svn revisions merged and the relevant Jira bug
IDs. However, this doesn't work well if there are conflicts, and the person
doing the merge isn't familiar with the patch in question. Sigh.
> need improved release process
> -----------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-1161
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1161
> Project: Hadoop
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: build
> Reporter: Doug Cutting
> Fix For: 0.13.0
>
>
> Hadoop's release process needs improvement. We should better ensure that
> releases are stable, not releasing versions that have not been proven stable
> on large clusters, and we should better observe Apache's release procedures.
> Once agreed on, this process should be documented in
> http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-hadoop/HowToRelease.
> Here's a proposal:
> . candidate release builds should be placed in
> lucene.apache.org/hadoop/dev/dist
> . candidate artifacts should be accompanied by a md5 and pgp signatures
> . a 72-hour vote for the release artifact should be called on hadoop-dev.
> . 3 binding +1 votes and a majority are required
> . if the vote passes, the release can then posted to
> www.apache.org/dist/lucene/hadoop for mirroring
> This would bring us into accord with Apache's requirements, and better permit
> large-cluster validation.
> We should also build consensus for a release before we commence this process.
> Perhaps we should aim for releases every two months instead of every month.
> We should perhaps develop more elaborate branching and merging conventions
> around releases. Currently we mostly lock-out changes intended for release
> X+1 from trunk until release X is complete, which can be awkward. How can we
> better manage that?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
