On Mar 18, 2012, at 7:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Arun Murthy <a...@hortonworks.com> wrote: >> Agree. In fact, I'm happy to rename branch-0.23 to branch-Y (Y > 1), >> if we can agree on the other thread, & create the RC. >> >> I agree with Todd (P) that its time to call it some thing other than >> 0.23, particularly with HDFS Wire-Compat and HA. Thoughts? > > It might be useful to put various options up for the community vote. > We don't have too many of them, really: > branch-2 > branch-3 > > Personally, I'm for branch-3. Regardless of the potential of .22 I'd > rather keep a slot for it. Worse case -- we don't have Hadoop 2 ever.
That seems reasonable at first glance. However, the problem is that hadoop-0.22 has removed public and non-deprecated apis/features (i.e. security) which are present in branch-1 (previously branch-0.20.2xx). This is against the Apache Hadoop release policy on major releases i.e. only features deprecated for at least one release can be removed. To their credit, the folks driving branch-0.22 (Konstantin et al) have always been clear that they do not plan to support security in branch-0.22 - but, it still is a blocker for renaming hadoop-0.22 to hadoop-2. Given that # It's been ~16 months since we branched 0.22 # It's been ~12 months since we released hadoop-0.20.203 which eventually became branch-1 # It's been ~9 months since security was removed from branch-0.22 # The vast majority of the contributors have moved on to trunk/branch-0.23 (#patches & #commits for past several months). it's unlikely that branch-0.22 will ever be a super-set of branch-1 and support security. To be clear, this isn't to discourage folks from working on branch-0.22. As always, people are welcome to 'scratch the itch' and Konstantin has done a great job pushing branch-0.22. Folks are welcome to continue to push for future releases off branch-0.22 called hadoop-0.22.xxx. In summary, unless we can find someone to step up and fix/validate security in branch-0.22 in very short order, say next month or so (given it's long history), I don't think it makes sense to rename branch-0.22 to branch-2. Roman - Would you like to step up and fix & validate security in branch-0.22? If so, can you let us know how soon? If not, I don't think it makes sense to 'leave a hole' for branch-0.22 forever since branch-0.23 is a super-set of branch-1 and branch-0.22 anyway. Arun
