[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1161?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12489883
]
Doug Cutting commented on HADOOP-1161:
--------------------------------------
I don't believe we should set a release date, since we can't know how long it
will take to stabilize. The date we can specify is the branch/freeze date.
After that we release as soon as we have a build that's been voted in. The
minimum is 72 hours, for the vote, and usually it will be longer than that, but
not necessarily a lot. I'd figured first-Friday was the branch/freeze date.
Also note that point releases from a branch don't require a new branch. So the
lifecycle for each major release is in general:
. branch/feature_freeze
. loop
point release from branch (after artifact passes vote, etc.)
if serious bugs found in prior point release release
go loop
else
break
> 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.
