Hi Owen,
>> 1. It is hard to tell what has changed. git rebase -i tells me the
>> branch has 722 commits. The rebase failed with a conflict. It would really
>> help if you rebased to current trunk.
Thanks for the comments. I have merged trunk to HDFS-7240 branch.
Hopefully, this makes it easy to look at the changes; I have committed the
change required to fix the conflict as a separate commit to make it easy for
you to see.
Thanks
Anu
On 3/2/18, 4:42 PM, "Wangda Tan" <wheele...@gmail.com> wrote:
I like the idea of same source / same release and put Ozone's source under
a different directory.
Like Owen mentioned, It gonna be important for all parties to keep a
regular and shorter release cycle for Hadoop, e.g. 3-4 months between minor
releases. Users can try features and give feedbacks to stabilize feature
earlier; developers can be happier since efforts will be consumed by users
soon after features get merged. In addition to this, if features merged to
trunk after reasonable tests/review, Andrew's concern may not be a problem
anymore:
bq. Finally, I earnestly believe that Ozone/HDSL itself would benefit from
being a separate project. Ozone could release faster and iterate more
quickly if it wasn't hampered by Hadoop's release schedule and security and
compatibility requirements.
Thanks,
Wangda
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Owen O'Malley <owen.omal...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
>
> Owen mentioned making a Hadoop subproject; we'd have to
> > hash out what exactly this means (I assume a separate repo still managed
> by
> > the Hadoop project), but I think we could make this work if it's more
> > attractive than incubation or a new TLP.
>
>
> Ok, there are multiple levels of sub-projects that all make sense:
>
> - Same source tree, same releases - examples like HDFS & YARN
> - Same master branch, separate releases and release branches - Hive's
> Storage API vs Hive. It is in the source tree for the master branch,
but
> has distinct releases and release branches.
> - Separate source, separate release - Apache Commons.
>
> There are advantages and disadvantages to each. I'd propose that we use
the
> same source, same release pattern for Ozone. Note that we tried and later
> reverted doing Common, HDFS, and YARN as separate source, separate release
> because it was too much trouble. I like Daryn's idea of putting it as a
top
> level directory in Hadoop and making sure that nothing in Common, HDFS, or
> YARN depend on it. That way if a Release Manager doesn't think it is ready
> for release, it can be trivially removed before the release.
>
> One thing about using the same releases, Sanjay and Jitendra are signing
up
> to make much more regular bugfix and minor releases in the near future.
For
> example, they'll need to make 3.2 relatively soon to get it released and
> then 3.3 somewhere in the next 3 to 6 months. That would be good for the
> project. Hadoop needs more regular releases and fewer big bang releases.
>
> .. Owen
>
