It's done. The new commit chain is: trunk -> branch-3.2 -> branch-3.1 -> branch-2.10 -> branch-2.9 -> branch-2.8 (branch-2 no longer exists, please don't try to commit to it)
Completed procedure: - Verified everything in old branch-2.10 was in old branch-2 - Delete old branch-2.10 - Rename branch-2 to (new) branch-2.10 - Set version in new branch-2.10 to 2.10.1-SNAPSHOT - Renamed fix versions from 2.11.0 to 2.10.1 - Removed 2.11.0 as a version in HADOOP/YARN/HDFS/MAPREDUCE Jonathan Hung On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:55 AM Jonathan Hung <jyhung2...@gmail.com> wrote: > FYI, starting the rename process, beginning with INFRA-19521. > > Jonathan Hung > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:15 PM Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hey guys, >> >> I think we diverged a bit from the initial topic of this discussion, >> which is removing branch-2.10, and changing the version of branch-2 from >> 2.11.0-SNAPSHOT to 2.10.1-SNAPSHOT. >> Sounds like the subject line for this thread "Making 2.10 the last minor >> 2.x release" confused people. >> It is in fact a wider matter that can be discussed when somebody actually >> proposes to release 2.11, which I understand nobody does at the moment. >> >> So if anybody objects removing branch-2.10 please make an argument. >> Otherwise we should go ahead and just do it next week. >> I see people still struggling to keep branch-2 and branch-2.10 in sync. >> >> Thanks, >> --Konstantin >> >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 3:49 PM Jonathan Hung <jyhung2...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the detailed thoughts, everyone. >>> >>> Eric (Badger), my understanding is the same as yours re. minor vs patch >>> releases. As for putting features into minor/patch releases, if we keep the >>> convention of putting new features only into minor releases, my assumption >>> is still that it's unlikely people will want to get them into branch-2 >>> (based on the 2.10.0 release process). For the java 11 issue, we haven't >>> even really removed support for java 7 in branch-2 (much less java 8), so I >>> feel moving to java 11 would go along with a move to branch 3. And as you >>> mentioned, if people really want to use java 11 on branch-2, we can always >>> revive branch-2. But for now I think the convenience of not needing to port >>> to both branch-2 and branch-2.10 (and below) outweighs the cost of >>> potentially needing to revive branch-2. >>> >>> Jonathan Hung >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:50 AM Eric Yang <ey...@cloudera.com> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 for 2.10.x as last release for 2.x version. >>>> >>>> Software would become more compatible when more companies stress test >>>> the same software and making improvements in trunk. Some may be extra >>>> caution on moving up the version because obligation internally to keep >>>> things running. Company obligation should not be the driving force to >>>> maintain Hadoop branches. There is no proper collaboration in the >>>> community when every name brand company maintains its own Hadoop 2.x >>>> version. I think it would be more healthy for the community to reduce the >>>> branch forking and spend energy on trunk to harden the software. This will >>>> give more confidence to move up the version than trying to fix n >>>> permutations breakage like Flash fixing the timeline. >>>> >>>> Apache license stated, there is no warranty of any kind for code >>>> contributions. Fewer community release process should improve software >>>> quality when eyes are on trunk, and help steering toward the same end >>>> goals. >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> Eric >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 3:03 PM Eric Badger >>>> <ebad...@verizonmedia.com.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello all, >>>>> >>>>> Is it written anywhere what the difference is between a minor release >>>>> and a >>>>> point/dot/maintenance (I'll use "point" from here on out) release? I >>>>> have >>>>> looked around and I can't find anything other than some compatibility >>>>> documentation in 2.x that has since been removed in 3.x [1] [2]. I >>>>> think >>>>> this would help shape my opinion on whether or not to keep branch-2 >>>>> alive. >>>>> My current understanding is that we can't really break compatibility in >>>>> either a minor or point release. But the only mention of the difference >>>>> between minor and point releases is how to deal with Stable, Evolving, >>>>> and >>>>> Unstable tags, and how to deal with changing default configuration >>>>> values. >>>>> So it seems like there really isn't a big official difference between >>>>> the >>>>> two. In my mind, the functional difference between the two is that the >>>>> minor releases may have added features and rewrites, while the point >>>>> releases only have bug fixes. This might be an incorrect >>>>> understanding, but >>>>> that's what I have gathered from watching the releases over the last >>>>> few >>>>> years. Whether or not this is a correct understanding, I think that >>>>> this >>>>> needs to be documented somewhere, even if it is just a convention. >>>>> >>>>> Given my assumed understanding of minor vs point releases, here are the >>>>> pros/cons that I can think of for having a branch-2. Please add on or >>>>> correct me for anything you feel is missing or inadequate. >>>>> Pros: >>>>> - Features/rewrites/higher-risk patches are less likely to be put into >>>>> 2.10.x >>>>> - It is less necessary to move to 3.x >>>>> >>>>> Cons: >>>>> - Bug fixes are less likely to be put into 2.10.x >>>>> - An extra branch to maintain >>>>> - Committers have an extra branch (5 vs 4 total branches) to commit >>>>> patches to if they should go all the way back to 2.10.x >>>>> - It is less necessary to move to 3.x >>>>> >>>>> So on the one hand you get added stability in fewer features being >>>>> committed to 2.10.x, but then on the other you get fewer bug fixes >>>>> being >>>>> committed. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to make this tradeoff. >>>>> But >>>>> we don't live in a perfect world and committers will make mistakes >>>>> either >>>>> because of lack of knowledge or simply because they made a mistake. If >>>>> we >>>>> have a branch-2, committers will forget, not know to, or choose not to >>>>> (for >>>>> whatever reason) commit valid bug fixes back all the way to >>>>> branch-2.10. If >>>>> we don't have a branch-2, committers who want their borderline risky >>>>> feature in the 2.x line will err on the side of putting it into >>>>> branch-2.10 >>>>> instead of proposing the creation of a branch-2. Clearly I have made >>>>> quite >>>>> a few assumptions here based on my own experiences, so I would like to >>>>> hear >>>>> if others have similar or opposing views. >>>>> >>>>> As far as 3.x goes, to me it seems like some of the reasoning for >>>>> killing >>>>> branch-2 is due to an effort to push the community towards 3.x. This >>>>> is why >>>>> I have added movement to 3.x as both a pro and a con. As a community >>>>> trying >>>>> to move forward, keeping as many companies on similar branches as >>>>> possible >>>>> is a good way to make sure the code is well-tested. However, from a >>>>> stability point of view, moving to 3.x is still scary and being able to >>>>> stay on 2.x until you are comfortable to move is very nice. The 2.10.0 >>>>> bridge release effort has been very good at making it possible for >>>>> people >>>>> to move from 2.x in 3.x, but the diff between 2.x and 3.x is so large >>>>> that >>>>> it is reasonable for companies to want to be extra cautious with 3.x >>>>> due to >>>>> potential performance degradation at large scale. >>>>> >>>>> A question I'm pondering is what happens when we move to Java 11 and >>>>> someone is still on 2.x? If they want to backport HADOOP-15338 >>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-15338> for Java 11 >>>>> support to >>>>> 2.x, surely not everyone is going to want that (at least not >>>>> immediately). >>>>> The 2.10 documentation states, "The JVM requirements will not change >>>>> across >>>>> point releases within the same minor release except if the JVM version >>>>> under question becomes unsupported" [1], so this would warrant a 2.11 >>>>> release until Java 8 becomes unsupported (though one could argue that >>>>> it is >>>>> already unsupported since Oracle is no longer giving public Java 8 >>>>> update). >>>>> If we don't keep branch-2 around now, would a Java 11 backport be the >>>>> catalyst for a branch-2 revival? >>>>> >>>>> Not sure if this really leads to any sort of answer from me on whether >>>>> or >>>>> not we should keep branch-2 alive, but these are the things that I am >>>>> weighing in my mind. For me, the bigger problem beyond having branch-2 >>>>> or >>>>> not is committers not being on the same page with where they should >>>>> commit >>>>> their patches. >>>>> >>>>> Eric >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> >>>>> https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r2.10.0/hadoop-project-dist/hadoop-common/Compatibility.html >>>>> [2] >>>>> >>>>> https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r3.0.0/hadoop-project-dist/hadoop-common/Compatibility.html >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 2:49 PM epa...@apache.org <epa...@apache.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > 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: common-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org >>>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>
