Hello Hadoop Release managers, Any update on this? Thanks, Lohit
2012/11/20 Tom White <t...@cloudera.com> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Siddharth Seth > <seth.siddha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > YARN-142/MAPREDUCE-4067 should ideally be fixed before we commit to API > > backward compatibility. Also, from the recent YARN meetup - there seemed > to > > be a requirement to change the AM-RM protocol for container requests. In > > this case, I believe it's OK to not have all functionality implemented, > as > > long as the protocol itself can represent the requirements. > > I agree. Do you think we can make these changes before removing the > 'alpha' label, i.e. in 2.0.3? If that's not possible for the container > requests change, then we could mark AMRMProtocol (or related classes) > as @Evolving. Another alternative would be to introduce a new > interface. > > > However, as > > Bobby pointed out, given the current adoption by other projects - > > incompatible changes at this point can be problematic and needs to be > > figured out. > > We have a mechanism for this already. If something is marked as > @Evolving it can change incompatibly between minor versions - e.g. > 2.0.x to 2.1.0. If it is @Stable then it can only change on major > versions, e.g. 2.x.y to 3.0.0. Let's make sure we are happy with the > annotations - and willing to support them at the indicated level - > before we remove the 'alpha' label. Of course, we strive not to change > APIs without a very good reason, but if we do we should do so within > the guidelines so that users know what to expect. > > Cheers, > Tom > > > > > Thanks > > - Sid > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Robert Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com> > wrote: > > > >> I am OK with removing the alpha assuming that we think that the APIs are > >> stable enough that we are willing to truly start maintaining backwards > >> compatibility on them within 2.X. From what I have seen I think that > they > >> are fairly stable and I think there is enough adoption by other projects > >> right now that breaking backwards compatibility would be problematic. > >> > >> --Bobby Evans > >> > >> On 11/16/12 11:34 PM, "Stack" <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > >> > >> >On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Aaron T. Myers <a...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > >> >> Hi Arun, > >> >> > >> >> Given that the 2.0.3 release is intended to reflect the growing > >> >>stability > >> >> of YARN, and the QJM work will be included in 2.0.3 which provides a > >> >> complete HDFS HA solution, I think it's time we consider removing the > >> >> "-alpha" label from the release version. My preference would be to > >> >>remove > >> >> the label entirely, but we could also perhaps call it "-beta" or > >> >>something. > >> >> > >> >> Thoughts? > >> >> > >> > > >> >I think it fine after two minor releases undoing the '-alpha' suffix. > >> > > >> >If folks insist we next go to '-beta', I'd hope we'd travel all > >> >remaining 22 letters of the greek alphabet before we 2.0.x. > >> > > >> >St.Ack > >> > >> > -- Have a Nice Day! Lohit
