Hi, > It turns out that both Cloudera and Hortonworks have plans to backport this to 0.94 in their respective distributions (I don't think that is a secret, apologies if it was). It seems true :). From my HWX hat, I can say that we are interested in backporting snapshots into 0.94, and my apache hat says that if (at least) two companies are interested in this, we should do it in an official apache branch. Now, having said that, ideally we should not be putting new stuff into 0.94, which is a stable branch. On Hadoop, since they are past 1.0, they kind of solved this by adding new features in 1.1, 1.2, etc.
I propose either: a) doing an exception for 0.94, and doing the backport there. We can do off by default. b) we can do a 0.95 which would basically be 0.94+snapshots. a) has the advantage of being the easier to maintain one, but main drawback would be to introduce possible destabilization and a major feature in the middle of stable releases b) has the advantage of being cleaner, but then we have to maintain 0.94, 0.95 and 0.96. Enis On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>wrote: > Just throwing it out there... If you're still including patch sets in > nightlies then one of us could port in the snapshots backport from CDH to > ASF. > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <j...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > As I mentioned on the jira, I can go either way +/-0 -- currently > > there is only rpc-related patches that are different between trunk and > > 0.94. This does however mean more overhead from the folks committing > > code and testing related to this feature (me, matteo, jesse, ted?), > > which had me leaning more -0 > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
