Thanks Andrew for driving the effort! +1 (non-binding) on starting the 3.0 release process now with 3.0 as an alpha.
I wanted to echo Andrew's point that backporting EC to branch-2 is a lot of work. Considering that no concrete backporting plan has been proposed, it seems quite uncertain whether / when it can be released in 2.9. I think we should rather concentrate our EC dev efforts to harden key features under the follow-on umbrella HDFS-8031 and make it solid for a 3.0 release. Sincerely, Zhe On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 9:25 AM Colin P. McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > +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 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > >
