Another thing to throw in there is the dependency/classpath isolation (HADOOP-11656). Some efforts have already been made by Sean, and it'd be great to complete this to have a much better dependency isolation solution for 3.x.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Gangumalla, Uma <uma.ganguma...@intel.com> wrote: > 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 > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >
