Great summary, thanks Vinod. On May 15, 2013, at 2:14 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote:
> > Roman, I keep this same argument again and again. Should've refuted earlier. > > Please list down all the issues that BigTop ran into *because of* new > features. You continue to argue that new features are destabilizing 2.0.*, > which I don't agree with at all. 2.0.3-alpha was the last time major features > got merged in, and we found blockers irrespective of those. > > MAPREDUCE-5240 specifically isn't due to any feature merge. This was a bug. > I'd say this is a long standing bug in 2.0.x. You sure this passed in 2.0.3? > Even so, this is mostly broken by another bug-fix and *not* because of any > feature. > > I quickly checked other bugs you reported in 2.0.x: > - MAPREDUCE-5088 was caused by the fix for HADOOP-9299 which was again a long > standing issue in 2.0.x > - MAPREDUCE-3728 is similar > - MAPREDUCE-5117 is similar > - MAPREDUCE-4219 was a security related feature request from you. > - MAPREDUCE-3916 was because of new proxy-server added. > > I am not arguing that new features *may* destabilize the branch, but you've > repeatedly stated this as if that were a fact. > > Really appreciate the testing done by BigTop, but please don't distort the > facts. > > Thanks, > +Vinod > > > On May 15, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > >> Please tell me if my expectations are incorrect, but to me the -beta would >> signify it being a 'safe' target for the downstream components. We're still >> finding *very* basic and *very* disruptive issues (MAPREDUCE-5240 is >> a good example) that essentially mean DOA for downstream that depends >> on this functionality. >> >> Are we comfortable with delivering 2.0.5-beta and later on starting >> to discover things like MAPREDUCE-5240 more or less accidentally? > -- Arun C. Murthy Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/
