> On 20 Feb 2016, at 15:34, Junping Du <j...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > > Shall we consolidate effort for 2.8.0 and 3.0.0? It doesn't sounds reasonable > to have two alpha releases to go in parallel. Is EC feature the main > motivation of releasing hadoop 3 here? If so, I don't understand why this > feature cannot land on 2.8.x or 2.9.x as an alpha feature.
> If we release 3.0 in a month like plan proposed below, it means we will have > 4 active releases going in parallel - two alpha releases (2.8 and 3.0) and > two stable releases (2.6.x and 2.7.x). It brings a lot of challenges in > issues tracking and patch committing, not even mention the tremendous effort > of release verification and voting. > I would like to propose to wait 2.8 release become stable (may be 2nd release > in 2.8 branch cause first release is alpha due to discussion in another email > thread), then we can move to 3.0 as the only alpha release. In the meantime, > we can bring more significant features (like ATS v2, etc.) to trunk and > consolidate stable releases in 2.6.x and 2.7.x. I believe that make life > easier. :) > Thoughts? > 2.8.0 is relatively close to shipping. I say relatively as I'm doing some work with ATS 1.5 downstream and I'd like to make sure all that works. There's also a large collection of S3 and swift patches needing attention from any reviewers with time and credentials. 3.x is going to take multiple iterations to stabilise, and with more changes, more significant a rollout. I'd also like to do a complete update of all the dependencies before a final release, so we can have less pressure to upgrade for a while, and get Sean's classloader patch in so it's slightly less visible. That means 3.0 is going to be an alpha release, not final. one thing that could be shared is any build.xml automation of the release process, to at least take away most of the manual steps in the process, to have something more repeatable. -steve > Thanks, > > Junping > ________________________________________ > From: Yongjun Zhang <yzh...@cloudera.com> > Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:05 PM > To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org > Cc: common-...@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; > yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org > Subject: Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release > > 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 >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
