[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1161?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12484629
 ] 

Raghu Angadi commented on HADOOP-1161:
--------------------------------------


> We already do have a branch for each major release. The question is where we 
> first commit patches and how to migrate them between branches. 
> To date we've mostly first committed patches to trunk and selectively merged 
> them to the branches prior to releases.

I wonder why we were waiting to merge patches meant for 0.13.0 until 0.12.1 and 
0.12.2 were released. May be we  were not waiting.. I might have misunderstood.


> 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.

Reply via email to