Hi Akira, thanks for responding, On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Akira AJISAKA <ajisa...@oss.nttdata.co.jp> wrote:
> Thanks Andrew for bringing this up. > +1 mostly looks fine but I'm thinking it's not now to cut branch-3. > > > classpath isolation > > IMHO, classpath isolation is a good thing to do. > We should pay down the technical dept ASAP. I'm willing to help. > > I'm thinking we can cut branch-3 and release 3.0 alpha > after HADOOP-11656 is fixed. That is, I'd like to mark > this issue as a blocker for 3.0. > I wonder that even if we cut branch-3 now, trunk and > branch-3 would be the same for a while. That seems useless. > > I'm willing to wait a bit here, but I think even what we have now is worth kicking the tires, and either the JDK8 target version or classpath isolation would make it even more compelling. If you're worried about backport overheads, Konst's proposal of releasing directly from trunk might be appealing. Needs some more examination though. > > JDK8 > > As Steve suggested, JDK8 can be in both trunk and branch-2. > +1 for moving to JDK8 ASAP. > > We can make sure branch-2 runs well under JDK8, but I'm against doing a target version bump to JDK8 like we're planning to do for JDK7 in a minor release. As I described in my reply to Arun, that was a special circumstance, and JDK target version bumps really are deserving of a new major release. > > maintaining 2.x > > For user side, now there is little merit to upgrade to 3.x. > More important thing is how long 2.x will be maintained. > Therefore we should consider when to stop backporting > new features to 2.x, and when to stop maintaining 2.x. > I'd like to maintain 2.x as long as possible, at least > one year after 3.x GA release. > > The value in releasing alphas right now is not so much for end users, but for downstream projects which need time to integrate. I don't expect end-users to really jump on 3.x until the downstreams have also rolled new releases based on 3.x. Determining when support for 2.x is over is done by the community. I personally plan to keep backporting for a while after 3.x GA is released. If backports to branch-2 tail off, it just takes one committer with the interest to keep maintaining it. This has been a common thing in HBase for instance, Lars H maintained 0.92 for a long time because he had the interest. > * Other issue > > What's the current status of HDFS symlink? > If HADOOP-10019 requires some incompatible changes, > I'd like to include in 3.x. > > There are still a lot of unresolved compatibility and security issues, especially with cross-filesystem symlinks. We tabled this work before, and frankly I'm not sure these issues will ever be satisfactorily resolved. Even today, there are plenty of Unix apps that don't handle symlinks correctly, and we still lack equivalents of more secure syscalls like openat() in the first place. Thanks, Andrew
