Hi Rohith, Given that we're advertising TSv2 as an alpha feature, I think we're allowed to break compatibility. Let's make sure this is clear in the release notes and documentation.
That said, with TSv2 phase 2, is the API going to be frozen? The umbrella JIRA refers to "TSv2 alpha2" which indicated to me it was still alpha-level quality and stability. Best, Andrew On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Rohith Sharma K S < rohithsharm...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Andrew > > Thanks for update on release plan! > > I would like to discuss specifically regarding compatibility of releases. > What is the compatibility to be maintained for GA if we don't merge to > beta1 release? IIUC, till now all the releases were alpha where > compatibility was not that important. All the public interfaces are > subjected to modifications. Once we release beta, compatibility would be a > matter. > During this gap i.e between beta-GA release, should we maintain > compatibility ? > If my understanding is right then TSv2 have to be merged with beta1 > release. In TSv2 phase-2, we have compatibility changes from phase-1. > > > Thanks & Regards > Rohith Sharma K S > > On 25 August 2017 at 02:03, Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > Glad to see the discussion continued in my absence :) > > > > From a release management perspective, it's *extremely* reasonable to > block > > the inclusion of new features a month from the planned release date. A > > typical software development lifecycle includes weeks of feature freeze > and > > weeks of code freeze. It is no knock on any developer or any feature to > say > > that we should not include something in 3.0.0. > > > > I've been very open and clear about the goals, schedule, and scope of > 3.0.0 > > over the last year plus. The point of the extended alpha process was to > get > > all our features in during alpha, and the alpha merge window has been > open > > for a year. I'm unmoved by arguments about how long a feature has been > > worked on. None of these were not part of the original 3.0.0 scope, and > our > > users have been waiting even longer for big-ticket 3.0 items like JDK8 > and > > HDFS EC that were part of the discussed scope. > > > > I see that two VOTEs have gone out since I was out. I still plan to > follow > > the proposal in my original email. This means I'll cut branch-3 and > > branch-3.0, and move trunk to 4.0.0 before these VOTEs end. This will > open > > up development for Hadoop 3.1.0 and 4.0.0. > > > > I'm reaching out to the lead contributor of each of these features > > individually to discuss. We need to close on this quickly, and email is > too > > low bandwidth at this stage. > > > > Best, > > Andrew > > >
