Yes. I think starting 3.0 release with alpha is good idea. So it would get some time to reach the beta or GA.
+1 for the plan. For the compatibility purposes and as current stable versions, we should continue 2.x releases anyway. Thanks Andrew for starting the thread. Regards, Uma On 2/18/16, 3:04 PM, "Andrew Wang" <andrew.w...@cloudera.com> wrote: >Hi Kihwal, > >I think there's still value in continuing the 2.x releases. 3.x comes with >the incompatible bump to a JDK8 runtime, and also the fact that 3.x won't >be beta or GA for some number of months. In the meanwhile, it'd be good to >keep putting out regular, stable 2.x releases. > >Best, >Andrew > > >On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Kihwal Lee <kih...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid> >wrote: > >> Moving Hadoop 3 forward sounds fine. If EC is one of the main >>motivations, >> are we getting rid of branch-2.8? >> >> Kihwal >> >> From: Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com> >> To: "common-...@hadoop.apache.org" <common-...@hadoop.apache.org> >> Cc: "yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org" <yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org>; " >> mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org" <mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org>; >> hdfs-dev <hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org> >> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 4:35 PM >> Subject: Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release >> >> Hi all, >> >> Reviving this thread. I've seen renewed interest in a trunk release >>since >> HDFS erasure coding has not yet made it to branch-2. Along with JDK8, >>the >> shell script rewrite, and many other improvements, I think it's time to >> revisit Hadoop 3.0 release plans. >> >> My overall plan is still the same as in my original email: a series of >> regular alpha releases leading up to beta and GA. Alpha releases make it >> easier for downstreams to integrate with our code, and making them >>regular >> means features can be included when they are ready. >> >> I know there are some incompatible changes waiting in the wings >> (i.e. HDFS-6984 making FileStatus a PB rather than Writable, some of >> HADOOP-9991 bumping dependency versions) that would be good to get in. >>If >> you have changes like this, please set the target version to 3.0.0 and >>mark >> them "Incompatible". We can use this JIRA query to track: >> >> >> >>https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20in%20(HADOOP%2C%20HD >>FS%2C%20YARN%2C%20MAPREDUCE)%20and%20%22Target%20Version%2Fs%22%20%3D%20% >>223.0.0%22%20and%20resolution%3D%22unresolved%22%20and%20%22Hadoop%20Flag >>s%22%3D%22Incompatible%20change%22%20order%20by%20priority >> >> There's some release-related stuff that needs to be sorted out (namely, >>the >> new CHANGES.txt and release note generation from Yetus), but I'd >> tentatively like to roll the first alpha a month out, so third week of >> March. >> >> Best, >> Andrew >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Raymie Stata <rst...@altiscale.com> >>wrote: >> >> > Avoiding the use of JDK8 language features (and, presumably, APIs) >> > means you've abandoned #1, i.e., you haven't (really) bumped the JDK >> > source version to JDK8. >> > >> > Also, note that releasing from trunk is a way of achieving #3, it's >> > not a way of abandoning it. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com> >> > wrote: >> > > Hi Raymie, >> > > >> > > Konst proposed just releasing off of trunk rather than cutting a >> > branch-2, >> > > and there was general agreement there. So, consider #3 abandoned. >>1&2 >> can >> > > be achieved at the same time, we just need to avoid using JDK8 >>language >> > > features in trunk so things can be backported. >> > > >> > > Best, >> > > Andrew >> > > >> > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Raymie Stata <rst...@altiscale.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > >> In this (and the related threads), I see the following three >> > requirements: >> > >> >> > >> 1. "Bump the source JDK version to JDK8" (ie, drop JDK7 support). >> > >> >> > >> 2. "We'll still be releasing 2.x releases for a while, with similar >> > >> feature sets as 3.x." >> > >> >> > >> 3. Avoid the "risk of split-brain behavior" by "minimize >>backporting >> > >> headaches. Pulling trunk > branch-2 > branch-2.x is already >>tedious. >> > >> Adding a branch-3, branch-3.x would be obnoxious." >> > >> >> > >> These three cannot be achieved at the same time. Which do we >>abandon? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:45 PM, sanjay Radia >><sanjayo...@gmail.com> >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> >> On Mar 5, 2015, at 3:21 PM, Siddharth Seth <ss...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > >> >> >> > >> >> 2) Simplification of configs - potentially separating client >>side >> > >> configs >> > >> >> and those used by daemons. This is another source of perpetual >> > confusion >> > >> >> for users. >> > >> > + 1 on this. >> > >> > >> > >> > sanjay >> > >> >> > >> >> >>
