[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1161?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12484539
]
Arun C Murthy commented on HADOOP-1161:
---------------------------------------
>The alternative is to simply to stall patches that add new features until the
>release is complete.
>When we have more active committers this should become easier to manage.
My sympathies.
I'd vote for the stalling patches - though I understand it places a artificial
roadblock on how quickly new features can be developed. Sigh.
> However, this doesn't work well if there are conflicts, and the person doing
> the merge isn't familiar with the patch in question. Sigh.
Necessary evil side-effect, no?
As an aside, +1 for Tom's suggestion to just look around other projects
(lucene, jira, etc.) for ideas? Anyone?
> need improved release process
> -----------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-1161
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1161
> Project: Hadoop
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: build
> Reporter: Doug Cutting
> Fix For: 0.13.0
>
>
> Hadoop's release process needs improvement. We should better ensure that
> releases are stable, not releasing versions that have not been proven stable
> on large clusters, and we should better observe Apache's release procedures.
> Once agreed on, this process should be documented in
> http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-hadoop/HowToRelease.
> Here's a proposal:
> . candidate release builds should be placed in
> lucene.apache.org/hadoop/dev/dist
> . candidate artifacts should be accompanied by a md5 and pgp signatures
> . a 72-hour vote for the release artifact should be called on hadoop-dev.
> . 3 binding +1 votes and a majority are required
> . if the vote passes, the release can then posted to
> www.apache.org/dist/lucene/hadoop for mirroring
> This would bring us into accord with Apache's requirements, and better permit
> large-cluster validation.
> We should also build consensus for a release before we commence this process.
> Perhaps we should aim for releases every two months instead of every month.
> We should perhaps develop more elaborate branching and merging conventions
> around releases. Currently we mostly lock-out changes intended for release
> X+1 from trunk until release X is complete, which can be awkward. How can we
> better manage that?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
