Thanks Andrew for initiating the effort! +1 on pushing 3.x with extended alpha cycle, and continuing the more stable 2.x releases.
--Yongjun On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Hi Kai, > > Sure, I'm open to it. It's a new major release, so we're allowed to make > these kinds of big changes. The idea behind the extended alpha cycle is > that downstreams can give us feedback. This way if we do anything too > radical, we can address it in the next alpha and have downstreams re-test. > > Best, > Andrew > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Zheng, Kai <kai.zh...@intel.com> wrote: > > > Thanks Andrew for driving this. Wonder if it's a good chance for > > HADOOP-12579 (Deprecate and remove WriteableRPCEngine) to be in. Note > it's > > not an incompatible change, but feel better to be done in the major > release. > > > > Regards, > > Kai > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andrew Wang [mailto:andrew.w...@cloudera.com] > > Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 7:04 AM > > To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org; Kihwal Lee <kih...@yahoo-inc.com> > > Cc: mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; common-...@hadoop.apache.org; > > yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release > > > > 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%2 > > > 0HDFS%2C%20YARN%2C%20MAPREDUCE)%20and%20%22Target%20Version%2Fs%22%20% > > > 3D%20%223.0.0%22%20and%20resolution%3D%22unresolved%22%20and%20%22Hado > > > op%20Flags%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 > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
