Hi Subru, Basically we're amending the proposal from the original email in the chain to also immediately create the branch-3.0.0-beta1 release branch. As described in my 2017-08-25 wiki update, we're gating the merge of these two features to branch-3.0 on additional testing, but this keeps 3.0.0 open for development.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/Hadoop+3+release+status+updates For completeness, here's what our branches and versions would look like: trunk: 3.1.0-SNAPSHOT branch-3.0: 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT branch-3.0.0-beta1: 3.0.0-beta1-SNAPSHOT branch-2 and etc: remain as is Best, Andrew On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Subramaniam V K <subru...@gmail.com> wrote: > Andrew, > > First up thanks for tirelessly pushing on 3.0 release. > > I am confused about your comment on creating 2 branches as my > understanding of Jason's (and Vinod's) comments are that we defer creating > branch-3? > > IMHO, we should consider creating branch-3 (necessary but not sufficient) > only when we have: > > 1. a significant incompatible change. > 2. a new feature that cannot be turned off without affecting core > components. > > In summary, I feel we should follow a lazy rather than eager approach > towards creating mainline branches. > > Thanks, > Subru > > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Wangda Tan <wheele...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Gotcha, make sense, so I will hold commit until you cut the two branches >> and TSv2 get committed. >> >> Thanks, >> Wangda >> >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi Wangda, >> > >> > I'll cut two branches: branch-3.0 (3.0.0-SNAPSHOT) and >> branch-3.0.0-beta1 >> > (3.0.0-beta1-SNAPSHOT). This way we can merge GA features to branch-3.0 >> but >> > not branch-3.0.0-beta1. >> > >> > Best, >> > Andrew >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Wangda Tan <wheele...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Vrushali, >> >> >> >> Sure we can wait TSv2 merged before merge resource profile branch. >> >> >> >> Andrew, >> >> >> >> My understanding is you're going to cut branch-3.0 for 3.0-beta1, and >> the >> >> same branch (branch-3.0) will be used for 3.0-GA as well. So my >> question >> >> is, there're several features (TSv2, resource profile, YARN-5734) are >> >> targeted to merge to 3.0-GA but not 3.0-beta1, which branch we should >> >> commit to, and when we can commit? Also, similar to 3.0.0-alpha1 to 4, >> you >> >> will cut branch-3.0.0-beta1, correct? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Wangda >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Andrew Wang < >> andrew.w...@cloudera.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Sure. Ping me when the TSv2 goes in, and I can take care of branching. >> >>> >> >>> We're still waiting on the native services and S3Guard merges, but I >> >>> don't want to hold branching to the last minute. >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Vrushali C <vrushalic2...@gmail.com >> > >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Hi Andrew, >> >>>> As Rohith mentioned, if you are good with it, from the TSv2 side, we >> >>>> are ready to go for merge tonight itself (Pacific time) right after >> the >> >>>> voting period ends. Varun Saxena has been diligently rebasing up >> until now >> >>>> so most likely our merge should be reasonably straightforward. >> >>>> >> >>>> @Wangda: your resource profile vote ends tomorrow, could we please >> >>>> coordinate our merges? >> >>>> >> >>>> thanks >> >>>> Vrushali >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Rohith Sharma K S < >> >>>> rohithsharm...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> On 29 August 2017 at 06:24, Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> > So far I've seen no -1's to the branching proposal, so I plan to >> >>>>> execute >> >>>>> > this tomorrow unless there's further feedback. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> For on going branch merge threads i.e TSv2, voting will be closing >> >>>>> tomorrow. Does it end up in merging into trunk(3.1.0-SNAPSHOT) and >> >>>>> branch-3.0(3.0.0-beta1-SNAPSHOT) ? If so, would you be able to wait >> >>>>> for >> >>>>> couple of more days before creating branch-3.0 so that TSv2 branch >> >>>>> merge >> >>>>> would be done directly to trunk? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > Regarding the above discussion, I think Jason and I have >> essentially >> >>>>> the >> >>>>> > same opinion. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > I hope that keeping trunk a release branch means a higher bar for >> >>>>> merges >> >>>>> > and code review in general. In the past, I've seen some patches >> >>>>> committed >> >>>>> > to trunk-only as a way of passing responsibility to a future user >> or >> >>>>> > reviewer. That doesn't help anyone; patches should be committed >> with >> >>>>> the >> >>>>> > intent of running them in production. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > I'd also like to repeat the above thanks to the many, many >> >>>>> contributors >> >>>>> > who've helped with release improvements. Allen's work on >> >>>>> create-release and >> >>>>> > automated changes and release notes were essential, as was Xiao's >> >>>>> work on >> >>>>> > LICENSE and NOTICE files. I'm also looking forward to Marton's >> site >> >>>>> > improvements, which addresses one of the remaining sore spots in >> the >> >>>>> > release process. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > Things have gotten smoother with each alpha we've done over the >> last >> >>>>> year, >> >>>>> > and it's a testament to everyone's work that we have a good >> >>>>> probability of >> >>>>> > shipping beta and GA later this year. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > Cheers, >> >>>>> > Andrew >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >
