Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

A heads up that I think we're getting close on the blockers for the first alpha. Looking at my list, I see two I'd like to get in still: YARN-5270 and HADOOP-13316. Will cut a branch and roll the release once those go in; my test builds have looked good thus far. My original plan was to do alphas

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

I am with Vinod on avoiding merging mostly_complete_branches to trunk since we are not shipping any release off it. If 3.x releases going off of trunk is going to help with this, I am fine with that approach. We should still make sure to keep trunk-incompat small and not include large features.

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

If we're not starting branch-3/trunk, what would distinguish it from trunk/trunk-incompat? Is it the same mechanism with different labels? That may be a reasonable strategy when we create branch-3, as a release branch for beta. Releasing 3.x from trunk will help us figure out which

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Tx for your replies, Andrew. >> For exit criteria, how about we time box it? My plan was to do monthly > alphas through the summer, leading up to beta in late August / early Sep. > At that point we freeze and stabilize for GA in Nov/Dec. Time-boxing is a reasonable exit-criterion. > In this

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

> On Apr 22, 2016, at 6:10 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > wrote: > > Nope. > > I’m proposing making a new 3.x release (as has been discussed in this thread) > off today’s trunk (instead of creating a fresh branch-3) and create a new > trunk-incompt where incompatible

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Great comments Vinod, thanks for replying. Since trunk is a superset of branch-2.8, I think the two efforts are mostly aligned. The 2.8 blockers are likely also 3.0 blockers. For example, the create-release and L JIRAs I mentioned are in this camp. The difference between the two is the

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Nope. I’m proposing making a new 3.x release (as has been discussed in this thread) off today’s trunk (instead of creating a fresh branch-3) and create a new trunk-incompt where incompatible changes that we don’t want in 3.x go. This is mainly to avoid repeating the “we are not releasing 3.x

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

> On Apr 22, 2016, at 5:38 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > wrote: > > On an unrelated note, offline I was pitching to a bunch of contributors > another idea to deal with rotting trunk post 3.x: *Make 3.x releases off of > trunk directly*. > > What this gains us is that > -

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

; re-test. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Andrew >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Zheng, Kai <kai.zh...@intel.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

I kind of echo Junping’s comment too. While 2.8 and 3.0 don’t need to be serialized in theory, in practice I’m desperately looking for help on 2.8.0. We haven’t been converging on 2.8.0 what with 50+ blocker / critical patches still unfinished. If postponing 3.x alpha to after a 2.8.0 alpha

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

ssure 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 th

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

t; > 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, &g

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

ve > > > > > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Junping > >> ____ > >> From: Yongjun Zhang <yzh...@cloudera.com> > >> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:05 PM > >> To: hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org > >> Cc: co

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

>> From: Yongjun Zhang <yzh...@cloudera.com> >> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:05 PM >> To: hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org >> Cc: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; >> yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Looking to

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

> From: Yongjun Zhang <yzh...@cloudera.com> > Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:05 PM > To: hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org > Cc: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; > yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org > Subject: Re: Looking to a

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Hi Junping, thanks for the mail, inline: On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Junping Du 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

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

: hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org Cc: common-dev@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 Th

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

kih...@yahoo-inc.com> > > Cc: mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; common-dev@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 rele

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

+1 for the plan to start cutting 3.x alpha releases. Thanks for the initiative Andrew! On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Steve Loughran wrote: > > > On 19 Feb 2016, at 11:27, Dmitry Sivachenko wrote: > > > > > >> On 19 Feb 2016, at 01:35, Andrew Wang

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

> On 19 Feb 2016, at 11:27, Dmitry Sivachenko wrote: > > >> On 19 Feb 2016, at 01:35, Andrew Wang wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Reviving this thread. I've seen renewed interest in a trunk release since >> HDFS erasure coding has not yet made it to

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

> On 19 Feb 2016, at 01:35, Andrew Wang wrote: > > 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

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

t;common-dev@hadoop.apache.org> Cc: "yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org" <yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org>; " mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org" <mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org>; hdfs-dev <hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 4:35 PM Subject: R

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

@hadoop.apache.org; common-dev@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

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

; > >> From: Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com> > >> To: "common-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <common-dev@hadoop.apache.org> > >> Cc: "yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org" <yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org>; " > >> mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.or

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

t;yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org>; " >> mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org" <mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org>; >> hdfs-dev <hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org> >> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 4:35 PM >> Subject: Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release >> >

RE: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

...@cloudera.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 7:04 AM To: hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; Kihwal Lee <kih...@yahoo-inc.com> Cc: mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; common-dev@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org Subject: Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release Hi Kihwal, I think there's still

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

To: "common-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <common-dev@hadoop.apache.org> > Cc: "yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org" <yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org>; " > mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org" <mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org>; > hdfs-dev <hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.or

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

..@hadoop.apache.org" <yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org>; "mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org" <mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org>; hdfs-dev <hdfs-...@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

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

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

On Mar 6, 2015, at 5:20 PM, Chris Douglas cdoug...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli vino...@hortonworks.com wrote: I'd encourage everyone to post their wish list on the Roadmap wiki that *warrants* making incompatible changes forcing us to go 3.x.

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

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

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

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

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

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

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

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. 12 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

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

-...@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 12:15 PM Subject: Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release Let's not dismiss this quite so handily. Sean, Jason, and Stack replied on HADOOP-11656 pointing out that while we could

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

-...@hadoop.apache.org Cc: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org common-dev@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 12:15 PM Subject: Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 12:15 PM Subject: Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release Let's not dismiss this quite so handily. Sean, Jason, and Stack replied on HADOOP-11656 pointing out that while we could make classpath isolation opt-in via configuration, what we really want longer term is to have

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Yes, these are the kind of enhancements that need to be proposed and discussed for inclusion! Thanks, +Vinod On Mar 5, 2015, at 3:21 PM, Siddharth Seth ss...@apache.org wrote: Some features that come to mind immediately would be 1) enhancements to the RPC mechanics - specifically support

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Right, but that doesn't really answer the question…. On Mar 5, 2015, at 10:23 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur tuc...@gmail.com wrote: If classloader isolation is in place, then dependency versions can freely be upgraded as won't pollute apps space (things get trickier if there is an ON/OFF switch).

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

IMO, if part of the community wants to take on the responsibility and work that takes to do a new major release, we should not discourage them from doing that. Having multiple major branches active is a standard practice. This time around we are not replacing the guts as we did from Hadoop 1 to

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

The 'resistance' is not so much about a new major release, more so about the content and the roadmap of the release. Other than the two specific features raised (the need for breaking compat for them is something that I am debating), I haven't seen a roadmap of branch-3 about any more features

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Sorry, outlook dequoted Alejandros's comments. Let me try again with his comments in italic and proofreading of mine On 05/03/2015 13:59, Steve Loughran ste...@hortonworks.commailto:ste...@hortonworks.com wrote: On 05/03/2015 13:05, Alejandro Abdelnur

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 12:15 PM Subject: Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release Let's not dismiss this quite so handily. Sean, Jason, and Stack replied on HADOOP-11656 pointing out that while we could make classpath isolation opt-in via configuration, what we really want longer term

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

On 05/03/2015 13:05, Alejandro Abdelnur tuc...@gmail.commailto:tuc...@gmail.com wrote: IMO, if part of the community wants to take on the responsibility and work that takes to do a new major release, we should not discourage them from doing that. Having multiple major branches active is a

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

I think it'll be useful to have a discussion about what else people would like to see in Hadoop 3.x - especially if the change is potentially incompatible. Also, what we expect the release schedule to be for major releases and what triggers them - JVM version, major features, the need for

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

If classloader isolation is in place, then dependency versions can freely be upgraded as won't pollute apps space (things get trickier if there is an ON/OFF switch). On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Allen Wittenauer a...@altiscale.com wrote: Is there going to be a general upgrade of

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

I've taken the liberty of adding a Hadoop 3 section to the Roadmap wiki page. In addition to the two things I've been pushing, I also looked through Allen's list (thanks Allen for making this) and picked out the shell script rewrite and the removal of HFTP as big changes. This would be the place

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Thanks all. There is an open issue HDFS-6962 (ACLs inheritance conflicts with umaskmode), for which the incompatibility appears to make it not suitable for 2.x and it's targetted 3.0, please see:

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:04 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com wrote: 2. If Hadoop 3 and 2.x are meant to exist together, we run a risk to manifest split-brain behavior again, as we had with hadoop-1, hadoop-2 and other versions. If that somehow beneficial for commercial vendors,

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

, March 03, 2015 2:30 PM To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org Cc: hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org Subject: Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release I started pitching in more on that JIRA. To add, I think we can and should strive for doing

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

In general +1 on 3.0.0. Its time. If we start now, it might make it out by 2016. If we start now, downstreamers can start aligning themselves to land versions that suit at about the same time. While two big items have been called out as possible incompatible changes, and there is ongoing

RE: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org Subject: Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release In general +1 on 3.0.0. Its time. If we start now, it might make it out by 2016. If we start now, downstreamers can start aligning themselves to land versions that suit at about the same time

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

One of the questions that keeps popping up is “what exactly is in trunk?” As some may recall, I had done some experiments creating the change log based upon JIRA. While the interest level appeared to be approaching zero, I kept playing with it a bit and eventually also started playing with

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Hi Konst, thanks for taking a look. I think I essentially agree with your points. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:04 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com wrote: Andrew, Hadoop 3 seems in general like a good idea to me. 1. I did not understand if you propose to release 3.0 instead of 2.7 or

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Hi Akira, thanks for responding, On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Akira AJISAKA ajisa...@oss.nttdata.co.jp wrote: Thanks Andrew for bringing this up. +1 mostly looks fine but I'm thinking it's not now to cut branch-3. classpath isolation IMHO, classpath isolation is a good thing to do. We

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

From: Akira AJISAKA ajisa...@oss.nttdata.co.jp Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 12:04 PM To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org Subject: Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release Thanks Andrew for bringing

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

I want to understand a lot more about the classpath isolation (HADOOP-11656) proposal, specifically, what is proposed and does it have to be tagged as incompatible? That's a bigger change than must setting javac.version=8 in the POM —though given what a fundamental problem it addresses, I'm in

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Totally agreed. I just left a comment there on the current state and what is needed. As of now, I think the big (and only?) changes are flipping the default classloader for tasks and splitting the HDFS jar. Thanks, +Vinod On Mar 3, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Steve Loughran

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Between: * removing -finalize * breaking HDFS browsing * changing du’s output (in the 2.7 branch) * changing various names of metrics (either intentionally or otherwise) * changing the JDK release … and probably lots of other stuff in branch-2 I

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

On Mar 3, 2015, at 9:36 AM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: If we preserve API compat and try to preserve wire compat, I don't see the harm in bumping the major release. If we preserve compatibility, then there is no need to bump major number. It allows us to include several

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org Cc: hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org Subject: Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release I started pitching in more on that JIRA. To add, I think we can and should strive for doing this in a compatible manner

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

I started pitching in more on that JIRA. To add, I think we can and should strive for doing this in a compatible manner, whatever the approach. Marking and calling it incompatible before we see proposal/patch seems premature to me. Commented the same on JIRA:

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

I am surprised classpath-isolation is being called a minor issue. We have been hearing users complain about Hadoop leaking its dependencies into the classpath for a while now, Guava being the culprit often. Not being able to upgrade our dependencies without affecting users has started to hamper

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org Subject: Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release Thanks Andrew for bringing this up. +1 mostly looks fine but I'm thinking it's not now to cut branch-3. classpath isolation IMHO, classpath isolation is a good

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

+1 On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Andrew Wang andrew.w...@cloudera.com wrote: Hi devs, It's been a year and a half since 2.x went GA, and I think we're about due for a 3.x release. Notably, there are two incompatible changes I'd like to call out, that will have a tremendous positive

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

+1, this sounds like a good plan to me. Thanks a lot for volunteering to take this on, Andrew. Best, Aaron On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Andrew Wang andrew.w...@cloudera.com wrote: Hi devs, It's been a year and a half since 2.x went GA, and I think we're about due for a 3.x release.

Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Hi devs, It's been a year and a half since 2.x went GA, and I think we're about due for a 3.x release. Notably, there are two incompatible changes I'd like to call out, that will have a tremendous positive impact for our users. First, classpath isolation being done at HADOOP-11656, which has

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Thanks Andrew for the proposal. +1, and I will be happy to help. --Yongjun On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Andrew Wang andrew.w...@cloudera.com wrote: Hi devs, It's been a year and a half since 2.x went GA, and I think we're about due for a 3.x release. Notably, there are two

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Andrew Thanks for bringing up the issue of moving to Java8. Java8 is important However, I am not seeing a strong motivation for changing the major number. We can go to Java8 in the 2.series. The classpath issue for Hadoop-11656 is too minor to force a major number change (no pun intended).

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Second, bumping the source and target JDK version to JDK8 (related to HADOOP-11090), which is important since JDK7 is EOL in April 2015 (two months from now). In the past, we've had issues with our dependencies discontinuing support for old JDKs, so this will future-proof us. Is moving to

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

+1 Happy to help too On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Yongjun Zhang yzh...@cloudera.com wrote: Thanks Andrew for the proposal. +1, and I will be happy to help. --Yongjun On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Andrew Wang andrew.w...@cloudera.com wrote: Hi devs, It's been a year and a

RE: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org Subject: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release Hi devs, It's been a year and a half since 2.x went GA, and I think we're about due for a 3.x release. Notably, there are two incompatible changes I'd like to call

RE: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org Subject: RE: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release JDK8 support is in the consideration, looks like many issues were reported and resolved already. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-11090 -Original

RE: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

+1 Regards, Yi Liu -Original Message- From: Andrew Wang [mailto:andrew.w...@cloudera.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:20 AM To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org Subject: Looking to a Hadoop 3

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

further and help, thanks. Regards, Kai -Original Message- From: Zheng, Kai Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:49 AM To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org Subject: RE: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

...@cloudera.com Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 3:19 PM To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org Subject: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release Hi devs, It's been a year and a half since 2.x went GA, and I think we're about due

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Wang andrew.w...@cloudera.com Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 3:19 PM To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org Subject: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release Hi devs, It's been a year and a half since 2.x went GA, and I think

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

+1 It sounds like a good idea, especially regarding JDK. Regards JB On 03/03/2015 12:19 AM, Andrew Wang wrote: Hi devs, It's been a year and a half since 2.x went GA, and I think we're about due for a 3.x release. Notably, there are two incompatible changes I'd like to call out, that will

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Thanks as always for the feedback everyone. Some inline comments to Arun's email, as his were the most extensive: Given that we already agreed to put in JDK7 in 2.7, and that the classpath is a fairly minor irritant given some existing solutions (e.g. a new default classloader), how do you

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Andrew, Hadoop 3 seems in general like a good idea to me. 1. I did not understand if you propose to release 3.0 instead of 2.7 or in addition? I think 2.7 is needed at least as a stabilization step for the 2.x line. 2. If Hadoop 3 and 2.x are meant to exist together, we run a risk to manifest