Thanks for the comments Tsuyoshi / Andrew / Varun / Junping / Akira. I agree that where possible we should serialize releases and make them incremental w.r.t fixes.
Will roll a new RC for 2.7.2 after the backports. If there are more thoughts on releases, which I’m sure we will all do have, let’s fork the thread off from this voting conversation. Thanks +Vinod > On Dec 29, 2015, at 6:50 AM, Junping Du <j...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > > I am +1 with pulling all of these tickets into 2.7.2. > - For “any fix in 2.6.3 to be there in all releases that get out after 2.6.3 > release date” > Shall we conclude this as a general rule - "any fix in 2.x.y to be there in > all 2.b.c releases (while b>=x) that get out after 2.x.y release date"? I am > generally fine with this, but just feel it sounds to set too strong > restrictions among branches. Some fixes could be trivial (test case fix, > etc.) enough to deserve more flexibility. I would prefer this rule only > applies on critical/blocker fixes, but not applies on minor/trivial issues. > Just 2 cents. > > Thanks, > > Junping > > From: Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <vino...@apache.org <mailto:vino...@apache.org>> > Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2015 12:47 AM > To: Junping Du > Cc: mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org <mailto:mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org>; > yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org <mailto:yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org>; > common-...@hadoop.apache.org <mailto:common-...@hadoop.apache.org>; > hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org <mailto:hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.2 RC1 > > I retract my -1. I think we will need to discuss this a bit more. > > Beyond those two tickets, there are a bunch more (totaling to 16) that are in > 2.6.3 but *not* in 2.7.2. See this: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=key%20in%20%28HADOOP-12526%2CHADOOP-12413%2CHADOOP-11267%2CHADOOP-10668%2CHADOOP-10134%2CYARN-4434%2CYARN-4365%2CYARN-4348%2CYARN-4344%2CYARN-4326%2CYARN-4241%2CYARN-2859%2CMAPREDUCE-6549%2CMAPREDUCE-6540%2CMAPREDUCE-6377%2CMAPREDUCE-5883%2CHDFS-9431%2CHDFS-9289%2CHDFS-8615%29%20and%20fixVersion%20!%3D%202.7.0 > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=key%20in%20(HADOOP-12526,HADOOP-12413,HADOOP-11267,HADOOP-10668,HADOOP-10134,YARN-4434,YARN-4365,YARN-4348,YARN-4344,YARN-4326,YARN-4241,YARN-2859,MAPREDUCE-6549,MAPREDUCE-6540,MAPREDUCE-6377,MAPREDUCE-5883,HDFS-9431,HDFS-9289,HDFS-8615)%20and%20fixVersion%20!=%202.7.0> > > Two options here, depending on the importance of ‘causality' between 2.6.x > and 2.7.x lines. > - Ship 2.7.2 as we voted on here > - Pull these 16 tickets into 2.7.2 and roll a new RC > > What do people think? Do folks expect “any fix in 2.6.3 to be there in all > releases that get out after 2.6.3 release date (December 16th)”? > > Thanks > +Vinod > >> On Dec 23, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <vino...@apache.org >> <mailto:vino...@apache.org>> wrote: >> >> Sigh. Missed this. >> >> To retain causality ("any fix in 2.6.3 will be there in all releases that >> got out after 2.6.3”), I’ll get these patches in. >> >> Reverting my +1, and casting -1 for the RC myself. >> >> Will spin a new RC, this voting thread is marked dead. >> >> Thanks >> +Vinod >> >>> On Dec 22, 2015, at 8:24 AM, Junping Du <j...@hortonworks.com >>> <mailto:j...@hortonworks.com>> wrote: >>> >>> However, when I look at our commit log and CHANGES.txt, I found something >>> we are missing: >>> 1. HDFS-9470 and YARN-4424 are missing from the 2.7.2 branch and RC1 tag. >>> 2. HADOOP-5323, HDFS-8767 are missing in CHANGE.txt >> > >
