On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 03:11PM, Matt Foley wrote: > Hi Cos, > I would also request that you renumber the release candidate to just > three-numbers, hence "2.0.5-alpha". > > Arun, are you willing to start the 2.1.x name-space for your next release, > so that 2.0.x-alpha can become an intermediate stabilization branch as Cos > and Konst want?
Let's get the facts straight, Matt, please: this "want" has been expressed in the official vote here http://s.apache.org/ZMf Apparently, 2.0.5-alpha is blocked now because of the another vote that hasn't been closed yet for whatever reason. In order to unblock a number of releases in downstream component I have moved forward with this release. Do you have any material objections to the release that pursue this goal? > I just think that using four-number schemes was symptomatic of the > near-forking we had back in the 0.20.xxx.y days, and I really don't want to > go back there. Especially since you could say that "0.20.xxx.y" is just > three significant numbers, the leading zero being inconsequential. I dare to remind that forth part of the version is reserved - not in a parallel universe, of course - for "patch level" aka bug fixes. It hardly can be taken a sign of 'forking' by any definition. Cos > So, would you please consider using 2.0.5-alpha? > > As for the "2.0.5-SNAPSHOT" in the branch-2 versioning, that's standard > usage. Whoever makes the 2.0.5 release (or any "next" release) is expected > to update the parent branch's SNAPSHOT default versioning, per > HowToReleasePostMavenization#Branching<https://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HowToReleasePostMavenization#Branching>, > step 6. > > Thanks, > --Matt > > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:57AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > > > I see you just re-opened MAPREUDCE-5211. > > > > > > Why not include MAPREDUCE-5211 as well rather than create one release > > per patch? > > > > Arun, it is unclear if MAPREDUCE-5211 has implications in 2.0.4 as per > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-5211?focusedCommentId=13670574&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13670574 > > > > Hence, there's a good chance that it never will be backported. And I don't > > have any plans to created 'a release per patch'. > > > > > Also, this is the first time we are seeing a four-numbered scheme in > > Hadoop. > > > Why not call this 2.0.5-alpha? > > > > There were precedents in four-numbered schemes before: 0.20.20[3-5].0 > > comes to > > mind. > > > > As for 2.0.5-alpha: The release numbering games and votes that had > > happened in > > the last few weeks are very confusing. Some of them never been concluded, > > the > > branches are moved and artifact versions seem to be colliding. 2.0.4.x > > seems > > to work well for the stabilization purposes and it will allow to unblock > > downstream and integration projects quickly. > > > > Cos > > > > > Arun > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > >
