On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote: > There's no plans to release anything else at this point - this is a bug-fix > release, as I pointed out on a numerous occasions. There's no new features - > just 2 fixes.
If you're worried about extending the voting by a week, I don't think anyone can reasonably object to a truncated schedule if the only change is the version number. Downstream fixes discovered in Bigtop are a sufficient reason for a patch release and I think we'd all like them to become routine. Not just in 2.0.x, but in later release branches. > 2.0.5 matter became and still is too controversial at some point. The vote > started by Arun to override the results of the Konstantin's vote never been > closed. For the nth time, neither release plan vote was binding. We recently amended the bylaws to eliminate this confusion. There is no ambiguity between votes when neither is in scope. > The downstream projects are handing in the middle of the air because > of that confusion. Can we please ground our discussion when discussing compatibility and bugs? Breathless alarm is not proportional to the severity, here. > Have I missed something or you just called me a cheater and a lair right to > my face? I called you neither. The prenominate votes were closed, counted, and declared to be binding over objections. I'm annoyed that I have to toggle my vote to prevent that tactic, but based on recent experience I don't expect you to forgo it. I'd be happy to learn my caution is unnecessary. -C >> > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 01:48PM, Chris Douglas wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Arun C Murthy <a...@hortonworks.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Why not include MAPREDUCE-4211 as well rather than create one release >> >> > per patch? >> >> >> >> From Cos's description, it sounded like these were backports of fixes >> >> to help Sqoop2 and fix some build issues. If it's not just to fixup >> >> leftover bugs in 2.0.4 *once* so downstream projects can integrate >> >> against 2.0.4.1, and this a release series, then I've completely >> >> misunderstood the purpose. >> >> >> >> Cos, are you planning 2.0.4.2? >> >> >> >> > Also, this is the first time we are seeing a four-numbered scheme in >> >> > Hadoop. Why not call this 2.0.5-alpha? >> >> >> >> Good point. Since it contains only backports from branch-2, it would >> >> make sense for it to be an intermediate release. >> >> >> >> I shouldn't have to say this, but I'm changing my vote to -1 while we >> >> work this out. -C >> >> >> >> > On May 24, 2013, at 8:48 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> All, >> >> >> >> >> >> I have created a release candidate (rc0) for hadoop-2.0.4.1-alpha that >> >> >> I would >> >> >> like to release. >> >> >> >> >> >> This is a stabilization release that includes fixed for a couple a of >> >> >> issues >> >> >> discovered in the testing with BigTop 0.6.0 release candidate. >> >> >> >> >> >> The RC is available at: >> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~cos/hadoop-2.0.4.1-alpha-rc0/ >> >> >> The RC tag in svn is here: >> >> >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop/common/tags/release-2.0.4.1-alpha-rc0 >> >> >> >> >> >> The maven artifacts are available via repository.apache.org. >> >> >> >> >> >> Please try the release bits and vote; the vote will run for the usual >> >> >> 7 days. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks for your voting >> >> >> Cos >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
