On May 30, 2013, at 8:41 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote: > Konstantin, Cos, > > As we change from 2.0.4.1 to 2.0.5 you'll need to do the following > housekeeping as you work the new RC. > > * rename the svn branch > * update the versions in the POMs > * update the CHANGES.txt in trunk, branch-2 and the release branch > * change the current 2.0.5 version in JIRA to 2.1.0, create a new 2.0.5 > version, change the fix version of the 2 JIRAs that make the RC
I renamed 2.0.5-beta to 2.1.0-beta and 2.0.4.1-alpha to 2.0.5-alpha versions in jira for HADOOP, HDFS, YARN & MAPREDUCE. Please take care of the rest. Also, in branch-2, the version should be 2.1.0-SNAPSHOT. thanks, Arun > > Thanks. > > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Chris Douglas <cdoug...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>> I have no issues of changing the version to 2.0.5-alpha and restarting >> to vote >>> for the release content, e.g. 2 bug fixes. Shall I call 3 days re-vote >> because >>> of the number change? >> >> +1 Sounds great. >> >>> Does the result of bylaw vote nullifies the unfinished vote started by >> Arun? >>> Sorry, I am dense, apparently. >> >> Yes, nobody should feel bound by either vote. The bylaw change >> clarifies that release plans are for RMs to solicit feedback and gauge >> PMC support for an artifact, not pre-approvals for doing work. >> >>> Can we limit the vote thread to the merits of the release then? >> >> Happily. >> >>> That sound like adding an insult to injury, if my forth-language skills >> do not >>> mislead me. >> >> They do mislead you, or I've expressed the point imprecisely. We can >> take this offline. -C >> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 01:48PM, Chris Douglas wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Arun C Murthy < >> a...@hortonworks.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Why not include MAPREDUCE-4211 as well rather than create one >> release per patch? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From Cos's description, it sounded like these were backports of >> fixes >>>>>>>> to help Sqoop2 and fix some build issues. If it's not just to >> fixup >>>>>>>> leftover bugs in 2.0.4 *once* so downstream projects can integrate >>>>>>>> against 2.0.4.1, and this a release series, then I've completely >>>>>>>> misunderstood the purpose. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cos, are you planning 2.0.4.2? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also, this is the first time we are seeing a four-numbered >> scheme in Hadoop. Why not call this 2.0.5-alpha? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Good point. Since it contains only backports from branch-2, it >> would >>>>>>>> make sense for it to be an intermediate release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I shouldn't have to say this, but I'm changing my vote to -1 >> while we >>>>>>>> work this out. -C >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On May 24, 2013, at 8:48 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have created a release candidate (rc0) for >> hadoop-2.0.4.1-alpha that I would >>>>>>>>>> like to release. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is a stabilization release that includes fixed for a >> couple a of issues >>>>>>>>>> discovered in the testing with BigTop 0.6.0 release candidate. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The RC is available at: >> http://people.apache.org/~cos/hadoop-2.0.4.1-alpha-rc0/ >>>>>>>>>> The RC tag in svn is here: >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop/common/tags/release-2.0.4.1-alpha-rc0 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The maven artifacts are available via repository.apache.org. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please try the release bits and vote; the vote will run for >> the usual 7 days. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your voting >>>>>>>>>> Cos >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> > > > > -- > Alejandro -- Arun C. Murthy Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/
