[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1161?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12485298
]
Doug Cutting commented on HADOOP-1161:
--------------------------------------
> I wonder why we were waiting to merge patches meant for 0.13.0 until 0.12.1
> and 0.12.2 were released.
The problem is not a lack of branches, but a lack of committers to maintain
them. We're prioritizing 0.12.x patches ahead of 0.13 patches. Intermixing
them makes merging harder which makes for more work for committers. For
example, today we have a 12.x branch that matches 0.12.2, while trunk contains
some things destined for 0.12.3 that have not yet been applied to the branch
and some for 0.13.0. This is consistent with the merging strategies discussed
above, but does risk leakage of 0.13 features back to the 0.12 branch, Owen's
concern.
> 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.
