Hey Eric, I don't have any objections to a release from branch-0.20-security-203. However when I examined the specific patch set I noticed the are important implications with respect to compatibility (of for 0.20.2 and 0.22), a question about project model (eg not reviewing patches on jira before committing them, not having patches go through trunk, etc), and some open questions for users (eg is this the next dot release of the stable branch?).
I agree this is a valuable artifact, but that doesn't mean it's OK to ignore compatibility concerns, etc. I've listed specifics questions/comments here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-common-dev/201105.mbox/%3CBANLkTinZ=xb6kj5pteln5kkd9b-cwam...@mail.gmail.com%3E Thanks, Eli On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Eric Baldeschwieler <eri...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > > Hi folks, > > This strikes me as a bit odd. I think we have already discussed this at > length and agreed that a release could proceed. > > Since then, Arun and Owen have worked actively to incorporated community > feedback into this release. > > All parties making Hadoop releases other then Apache have already > incorporated most of the patches in this release into their products, > including doug's organization. I don't see how Hadoop's users benefit from > Apache not incorporating them into an Apache release. > > As previously discussed, all parties are welcome to champion altenative > releases from Apache if they want to invest in making Apache Hadoop better. > > Thanks!! > > E14 > > --- > E14 - typing on glass > > On May 2, 2011, at 12:16 PM, "Ian Holsman" <had...@holsman.net> wrote: > >> moving this thread to general@ >> >> On May 3, 2011, at 3:58 AM, Doug Cutting wrote: >> >>>> Should we release >>>> http://people.apache.org/~omalley/hadoop-0.20.203.0-rc0/? >>> >>> The patch selection process for this branch did not appear to be a >>> community process. A massive patch set was committed en-masse with no >>> public discussion before or after about its specific composition. >> >> guys... >> 1. do we agree this is an issue >> 2. if it is, how we do get the communication & discussion on list? >> >> what do people think are the major issues that are stopping people talking >> about stuff on list are? >
