Is there anyone interested in volunteering to run a 2.6.1 release (Akira?)? You'd get some help (especially if the bar is set high and only critical bug fixes are allowed in: i.e. no features, no 'perf' fixes, no jar updates, and so on).
St.Ack On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Chris Douglas <cdoug...@apache.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > Alternatively, why not appoint a Release Manager for the minor release > line > > and then allow them to arbitrate when there's disagreement about > inclusion? > > This has worked well in the HBase community. > > > Release managers aren't appointed in Hadoop. Any committer can RM a > release branch and encourage others to help with it. An RM can set the > bar arbitrarily, but an RC only becomes a release when a majority of > PMC votes approve it in a VOTE. -C > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > Why not just include all backwards compatible bug fixes? > > > > Alternatively, why not appoint a Release Manager for the minor release > line > > and then allow them to arbitrate when there's disagreement about > inclusion? > > This has worked well in the HBase community. > > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Karthik Kambatla <ka...@cloudera.com> > > wrote: > > > >> As I proposed in the other thread, how about we adopting the following > >> model: > >> > >> x.y.1 releases have all Blocker, Critical, Major bug fixes applied to > the > >> next minor release. > >> x.y.2 releases have all Blocker, Critical bug fixes applied to the next > >> minor release. > >> x.y.3 releases have all Blocker bug fixes applied to next minor release. > >> > >> Here I am assuming there are no security-fix-only or other urgent > releases. > >> > >> We could apply this approach for 2.7.x onwards, and do an adhoc 2.6 > >> release. > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < > >> vino...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Yeah, I started a thread while back on this one ( > >> > http://markmail.org/message/sbykjn5xgnksh6wg) and had many offline > >> > discussions re 2.6.1. > >> > > >> > The biggest problem I found offline was about what bug-fixes are > >> > acceptable and what aren’t for everyone wishing to consume 2.6.1. > Given > >> the > >> > number of bug-fixes that went into 2.7.x and into branch-2.8, figuring > >> out > >> > a set of patches that is acceptable for everyone is a huge challenge > >> which > >> > kind of stalled my attempts. > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > +Vinod > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Jul 15, 2015, at 8:57 AM, Sangjin Lee <sjl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Strong +1 for having a 2.6.1 release. I understand Vinod has been > >> trying > >> > to > >> > > get that effort going but it's been stalled a little bit. It would > be > >> > good > >> > > to rekindle that effort. > >> > > > >> > > Companies with big hadoop 2.x deployments (including mine) have > always > >> > > tried to stabilize a 2.x release by testing/collecting/researching > >> > critical > >> > > issues on the release. Each would come up with its own set of fixes > to > >> > > backport. We would also communicate it via offline channels. During > the > >> > > hadoop summit, we thought it would be great if we all came together > and > >> > > create a public stability/bugfix release on top of 2.x (2.6.1 for > 2.6 > >> for > >> > > example) with all the critical issues fixed. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > Sangjin > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Tsuyoshi Ozawa <oz...@apache.org> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> Thank you for the notification. Trying to back port bug fixes. > >> > >> > >> > >> - Tsuyoshi > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Hadoopers! > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Over in HBase we've been discussing the impact of our > dependencies on > >> > our > >> > >>> downstream users. As our most fundamental dependency, Hadoop > plays a > >> > big > >> > >>> role in the operational cost of running an HBase instance. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Currently the HBase 1.y release line supports Hadoop 2.4, 2.5, and > >> > >> 2.6[1]. > >> > >>> We don't drop Hadoop minor release lines in minor releases so we > are > >> > >>> unlikely remove anything from this set until HBase 2.0, probably > at > >> the > >> > >> end > >> > >>> of 2015 / start of 2016 (and currently we plan to continue > supporting > >> > at > >> > >>> least 2.4 for HBase 2.0 [2]). Lately we've been discussing > updating > >> our > >> > >>> shipped binaries to Hadoop 2.6, following some stability testing > by > >> > part > >> > >> of > >> > >>> our community[3]. Unfortunately, 2.6.0 in particular has a couple > of > >> > bugs > >> > >>> that could destroy HBase clusters should users decide to turn on > HDFS > >> > >>> encryption[4]. Our installation instructions tell folks to replace > >> > these > >> > >>> jars with the version of Hadoop they are actually running, but not > >> all > >> > >>> users follow those instructions so we want to minimize the pain > for > >> > them. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Regular maintenance releases are key to keeping operational > burdens > >> low > >> > >> for > >> > >>> our downstream users; we don't want them to be forced to choose > >> between > >> > >>> living with broken systems and stomaching the risk of upgrades > across > >> > >>> minor/major version numbers. Looking back over the three > >> aforementioned > >> > >>> Hadoop versions, 2.6 hasn't had a patch release since 2.6.0 came > out > >> in > >> > >> Nov > >> > >>> 2014, when 2.5 had its last patch release as well. Hadoop 2.4 > looks > >> to > >> > >> be a > >> > >>> year without a release[5]. On our discussion of shipping Hadoop > 2.6 > >> > >>> binaries, one of your PMC members mentioned that with continued > work > >> on > >> > >> the > >> > >>> 2.7 line y'all weren't planning any additional releases of the > >> earlier > >> > >>> minor versions[6]. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> The HBase community requests that Hadoop pick up making > bug-fix-only > >> > >> patch > >> > >>> releases again on a regular schedule[7]. Preferably on the 2.6 > line > >> and > >> > >>> preferably monthly. We realize that given the time gap since > 2.6.0 it > >> > >> will > >> > >>> likely take a big to get 2.6.1 together, but after that it should > >> take > >> > >> much > >> > >>> less effort to continue. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> [1]: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop > >> > >>> [2]: http://s.apache.org/ReP > >> > >>> [3]: HBASE-13339 > >> > >>> [4]: HADOOP-11674 and HADOOP-11710 > >> > >>> [5]: http://hadoop.apache.org/releases.html > >> > >>> [6]: http://s.apache.org/MTY > >> > >>> [7]: http://s.apache.org/ViP > >> > >>> > >> > >>> -- > >> > >>> Sean > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Karthik Kambatla > >> Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc. > >> -------------------------------------------- > >> http://five.sentenc.es > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Sean >
