Hi Konstantin, Sure, I understand those concerns. On the other hand, I worry about the stability of 2.10, since we will be on it for a couple of years at least. I worry that some committers may want to put new features into a branch 2 release, and without a branch-2, they will go directly into 2.10. Since we don't always catch corner cases or performance problems for some time (usually not until the release is deployed to a busy, 4-thousand node cluster), it may be very difficult to back out those changes.
It sounds like I'm in the minority here, so I'm not nixing the idea, but I do have these reservations. Thanks, -Eric On Tuesday, November 19, 2019, 1:04:15 AM CST, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Eric, We had a long discussion on this list regarding making the 2.10 release the last of branch-2 releases. We intended 2.10 as a bridge release between Hadoop 2 and 3. We may have bug-fix releases or 2.10, but 2.11 is not in the picture right now, and many people may object this idea. I understand Jonathan's proposal as an attempt to 1. eliminate confusion which branches people should commit their back-ports to 2. save engineering effort committing to more branches than necessary "Branches are cheap" as our founder used to say. If we ever decide to release 2.11 we can resurrect the branch. Until then I am in favor of Jonathan's proposal +1. Thanks, --Konstantin On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:41 AM Jonathan Hung <jyhung2...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Eric for the comments - regarding your concerns, I feel the pros > outweigh the cons. To me, the chances of patch releases on 2.10.x are much > higher than a new 2.11 minor release. (There didn't seem to be many people > outside of our company who expressed interest in getting new features to > branch-2 prior to the 2.10.0 release.) Even now, a few weeks after 2.10.0 > release, there's 29 patches that have gone into branch-2 and 9 in > branch-2.10, so it's already diverged quite a bit. > > In any case, we can always reverse this decision if we really need to, by > recreating branch-2. But this proposal would reduce a lot of confusion IMO. > > Jonathan Hung > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 11:41 AM epa...@apache.org <epa...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Thanks Jonathan for opening the discussion. > > > > I am not in favor of this proposal. 2.10 was very recently released, and > > moving to 2.10 will take some time for the community. It seems premature > to > > make a decision at this point that there will never be a need for a 2.11 > > release. > > > > -Eric > > > > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019, 8:51:59 PM CST, Jonathan Hung < > > jyhung2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi folks, > > > > Given the release of 2.10.0, and the fact that it's intended to be a > bridge > > release to Hadoop 3.x [1], I'm proposing we make 2.10.x the last minor > > release line in branch-2. Currently, the main issue is that there's many > > fixes going into branch-2 (the theoretical 2.11.0) that's not going into > > branch-2.10 (which will become 2.10.1), so the fixes in branch-2 will > > likely never see the light of day unless they are backported to > > branch-2.10. > > > > To do this, I propose we: > > > > - Delete branch-2.10 > > - Rename branch-2 to branch-2.10 > > - Set version in the new branch-2.10 to 2.10.1-SNAPSHOT > > > > This way we get all the current branch-2 fixes into the 2.10.x release > > line. Then the commit chain will look like: trunk -> branch-3.2 -> > > branch-3.1 -> branch-2.10 -> branch-2.9 -> branch-2.8 > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Jonathan Hung > > > > [1] > https://www.mail-archive.com/yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org/msg29479.html > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org
