+1 for a release of 3.0. There are a lot of significant, compatibility-breaking, but necessary changes in this release... we've touched on some of them in this thread.
+1 for a parallel release of 2.8 as well. I think we are pretty close to this, barring a dozen or so blockers. best, Colin On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Steve Loughran <ste...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > >> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
