Yes, Vinod. Thanks for understanding. The plan is not to add any new features in 2.0.5. Only API changes to allow potential feature backports in subsequent releases. I will rename branch-2.0-alpha Arun created to branch-2.0.5 (right after this), make changes on it, then release. Similar to branch-0.23 model.
Renaming of current 2.0.5-beta to 2.1 is great. Do I understand correctly that renaming current 2.0.5-beta to 2.1 is a change in CHANGES.txt and renaming Jira versions, since 2.0.5-beta branch has not been carved? Guys, please raise your voice to volunteer for the RM role? I will take on it if nobody wants it. I guess it will take a day or two to sort things out after the vote. Thanks, --Konst On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < vino...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > > Have no idea what you meant there. > > Even though several others noted that it isn't clear what is being voted > on, trying to make sense out of it, it seems that > - you don't want any new features at all in 2.0.5. > - The originally planned 2.0.5 *has* already got new features which go > against this vote result. > > So I think, Arun proposed that we rename the originally planned 2.0.5 to > 2.1 and you said yes. Arun then he went ahead and copied 2.0.4-alpha to > 2.0-alpha where it can be 'stabilized'. > > And then this. > > Please make it clear. Unfortunately there are those who have the onus of > reviewing/committing some 'features' to branch-2. Please let us know what > is okay. > > Will start committing to branch-2 unless I hear otherwise. > > The other concern is about merging patches into this 'stability-branch'. > Clearly the vote doesn't tell who the RM is and it isn't clear who is doing > it. Till that happens, I'll skip merging patches to branch-2.0-alpha branch > - whether the patch is a feature or a bug needs to be negotiated with the > RM *when in doubt*. > > Thanks, > +Vinod > > On May 14, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: > > > Sounds like you are having fun, Arun. > > 2.0.5 is explicitly in the subject line for this vote. > > No worries I'll fix that. > > > > You should stop assuming - it's in nobody interests - and start reading. > > --Konst > > > > > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Arun C Murthy <a...@hortonworks.com> > wrote: > > > >> > >> On May 14, 2013, at 11:04 AM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: > >> > >>>> I can point you towards a set of fixes I think important for YARN > >>> (nodemanager, security etc.). > >>> > >>> That would be very much appreciated. > >>> > >>>> I'll do the 2.1 series by renaming the planned 2.0.5 to 2.1. > >>> > >>> Thanks. > >>> > >> > >> Thanks. I've copied branch-2.0.4-alpha as a new branch-2.0-alpha branch. > >> > >> This way you can start with a clean slate. Good luck. > >> > >> As I noted before in the thread, the APIs in branch-2.0-alpha will > remain > >> incompatible with branch-2. > >> > >> thanks, > >> Arun > >
