bq. Is it difficult to backport to 2.7.x if you're already backporting to 2.6.x? I don't follow why special casing some class of fixes is desirable. It is not difficult to backport the commits between 2.6.x and 2.7.x. However, it do *difficult* to track exactly for hundreds of commits between them. Taking HDFS-9470 as an example, the committer totally forget to merge the commit into 2.7.2 when it is resolved as fixed in 2.7.2. The commit was merged into 2.6.3 later but get missed on 2.7.2 RC1. If this is not a critical fix, I don't think 2.7.2 should get a new RC to wait this commit to land on. That's why classifying on priority of fixes are important and desirable when we are facing this situation.
bq. Also for maintenance releases, aren't all included fixes supposed to be for serious bugs? Minor JIRAs can wait for the next minor release. If there are strong reasons to include a minor JIRA in a maintenance release, then maybe it's not really a minor JIRA. If a committer commit a major/minor priority patch on a maintenance release, what RM should do? Revert it or upgrade the priority to critical even it doesn't belong to critical? I believe only commit critical/blocker patch to maintenance release can only be a general guideline for maintenance release, but not a strict rule for all committers in practice. RMs should obey this guideline strictly in cherry-pick commits but there are more commits get committed by other committers. The committer choose the fixed branch not only by priority but also by target branch proposed by patch contributor who may only work on that branch release for a long time. I think this target/fix branch negotiation mechanism going on well and we shouldn't break it. Thanks, Junping ________________________________________ From: Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 7:43 PM To: common-...@hadoop.apache.org Cc: mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org; Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.2 RC1 I like monotonic releases since it's simple for users to understand. Is it difficult to backport to 2.7.x if you're already backporting to 2.6.x? I don't follow why special casing some class of fixes is desirable. Also for maintenance releases, aren't all included fixes supposed to be for serious bugs? Minor JIRAs can wait for the next minor release. If there are strong reasons to include a minor JIRA in a maintenance release, then maybe it's not really a minor JIRA. Best, Andrew On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Akira AJISAKA <ajisa...@oss.nttdata.co.jp> wrote: > The general rule sounds good to me. > > > "any fix in 2.x.y to be there in all 2.b.c releases (while b>=x) that > get out after 2.x.y release date" > > +1 > > > I would prefer this rule only applies on critical/blocker fixes, but not > applies on minor/trivial issues. > > +1 > > Thanks, > Akira > > > On 12/29/15 23:50, Junping Du wrote: > >> I am +1 with pulling all of these tickets into 2.7.2. >> >> - For “any fix in 2.6.3 to be there in all releases that get out after >> 2.6.3 release date” >> >> Shall we conclude this as a general rule - "any fix in 2.x.y to be there >> in all 2.b.c releases (while b>=x) that get out after 2.x.y release date"? >> I am generally fine with this, but just feel it sounds to set too strong >> restrictions among branches. Some fixes could be trivial (test case fix, >> etc.) enough to deserve more flexibility. I would prefer this rule only >> applies on critical/blocker fixes, but not applies on minor/trivial issues. >> >> Just 2 cents. >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Junping >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <vino...@apache.org> >> Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2015 12:47 AM >> To: Junping Du >> Cc: mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org; >> common-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.2 RC1 >> >> I retract my -1. I think we will need to discuss this a bit more. >> >> Beyond those two tickets, there are a bunch more (totaling to 16) that >> are in 2.6.3 but *not* in 2.7.2. See this: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=key%20in%20%28HADOOP-12526%2CHADOOP-12413%2CHADOOP-11267%2CHADOOP-10668%2CHADOOP-10134%2CYARN-4434%2CYARN-4365%2CYARN-4348%2CYARN-4344%2CYARN-4326%2CYARN-4241%2CYARN-2859%2CMAPREDUCE-6549%2CMAPREDUCE-6540%2CMAPREDUCE-6377%2CMAPREDUCE-5883%2CHDFS-9431%2CHDFS-9289%2CHDFS-8615%29%20and%20fixVersion%20!%3D%202.7.0 >> < >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=key%20in%20(HADOOP-12526,HADOOP-12413,HADOOP-11267,HADOOP-10668,HADOOP-10134,YARN-4434,YARN-4365,YARN-4348,YARN-4344,YARN-4326,YARN-4241,YARN-2859,MAPREDUCE-6549,MAPREDUCE-6540,MAPREDUCE-6377,MAPREDUCE-5883,HDFS-9431,HDFS-9289,HDFS-8615)%20and%20fixVersion%20!=%202.7.0 >> > >> >> Two options here, depending on the importance of ‘causality' between >> 2.6.x and 2.7.x lines. >> - Ship 2.7.2 as we voted on here >> - Pull these 16 tickets into 2.7.2 and roll a new RC >> >> What do people think? Do folks expect “any fix in 2.6.3 to be there in >> all releases that get out after 2.6.3 release date (December 16th)”? >> >> Thanks >> +Vinod >> >> On Dec 23, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <vino...@apache.org >> <mailto:vino...@apache.org>> wrote: >> >> Sigh. Missed this. >> >> To retain causality ("any fix in 2.6.3 will be there in all releases that >> got out after 2.6.3”), I’ll get these patches in. >> >> Reverting my +1, and casting -1 for the RC myself. >> >> Will spin a new RC, this voting thread is marked dead. >> >> Thanks >> +Vinod >> >> On Dec 22, 2015, at 8:24 AM, Junping Du <j...@hortonworks.com<mailto: >> j...@hortonworks.com>> wrote: >> >> However, when I look at our commit log and CHANGES.txt, I found something >> we are missing: >> 1. HDFS-9470 and YARN-4424 are missing from the 2.7.2 branch and RC1 tag. >> 2. HADOOP-5323, HDFS-8767 are missing in CHANGE.txt >> >> >> >
