FAQ
I wanted to send an update on my plans for doing a 0.21 Hadoop Release.

Next Friday (16 April) is the feature freeze date for the new 0.21
branch. On that date I will create new 0.21 branches for Common, HDFS,
and MapReduce (I will rename the old branches so history is not lost),
and update the CHANGES.txt files and JIRA to reflect the new branch
contents. If there are issues that are not blockers that you wish to
see in the 0.21 release then you should endeavour to get these
committed in the next week.

After the branches have been created the next step will be to close
the blockers before cutting a release candidate. I hope it will be
possible to do this in a matter of weeks. The current blockers for
0.21 are: http://bit.ly/9UaOTe (Common), http://bit.ly/crOG7I (HDFS),
http://bit.ly/cCS7zw (MapReduce); although this list will change as
issues that are not true blockers get removed, and issues that crop up
during build and testing are added.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about this plan.

Cheers,
Tom

Search Discussions

  • Owen O'Malley at Apr 9, 2010 at 6:49 pm

    On Apr 9, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Tom White wrote:

    Next Friday (16 April) is the feature freeze date for the new 0.21
    branch.
    I've been buried by security work and would really love to have some
    more time to review API annotations, look at the jdiffs for the apis,
    and hopefully to get the new generic serialization api in before the
    branch. Can I ask for a feature freeze data of 30 April?

    Thanks,
    Owen
  • Doug Cutting at Apr 10, 2010 at 12:16 am

    Owen O'Malley wrote:
    and hopefully to get the new generic serialization api in before the
    branch.
    Is this just HADOOP-6685? Or does it also include MAPREDUCE-1183?

    My instinct would rather be to revert the serialization API changes made
    since 0.20 (mostly HADOOP-6165) if that's not an API we intend to
    support, and not add new APIs at the last minute. Tom's proposed that
    the serialization API is "evolving", so we can technically change it
    going forward, but we should still be cautious about promoting new APIs
    without a clear consensus, and serialization APIs have proven
    controversial in the recent past. It might be also better to get some
    experience with a new API in trunk before we include it in a release.

    Doug
  • Owen O'Malley at Apr 11, 2010 at 7:08 am

    On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:

    Is this just HADOOP-6685? Or does it also include MAPREDUCE-1183?
    I just meant h-6685.

    My instinct would rather be to revert the serialization API changes made
    since 0.20 (mostly HADOOP-6165) if that's not an API we intend to support,
    and not add new APIs at the last minute.
    I have the patch almost ready, but it is a fair point that reverting the
    previous change is lower risk. I will file an issue. I'm still asking for
    the two week extension to look at the other APIs, especially since I'll
    largely be offline this week.

    -- Owen
  • Tom White at Apr 11, 2010 at 3:49 pm
    Hi Owen,

    Thanks for your offer to review the work I've been doing on
    compatibility. If pushing back the freeze date will help us stabilize
    the public API, then I'm OK moving it to 30 April.

    On the serialization changes, I'm +1 to backing out the changes since
    0.20 rather than trying to get new changes in for 0.21.

    Cheers,
    Tom
    On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
    On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:

    Is this just HADOOP-6685?  Or does it also include MAPREDUCE-1183?
    I just meant h-6685.

    My instinct would rather be to revert the serialization API changes made
    since 0.20 (mostly HADOOP-6165) if that's not an API we intend to support,
    and not add new APIs at the last minute.
    I have the patch almost ready, but it is a fair point that reverting the
    previous change is lower risk. I will file an issue. I'm still asking for
    the two week extension to look at the other APIs, especially since I'll
    largely be offline this week.

    -- Owen
  • Allen Wittenauer at Apr 12, 2010 at 11:14 pm
    So, does this mean that everything that has been committed for 0.22 is actually going to be in 0.21? For example, symlinks were committed to trunk for 0.22 according to JIRA.

    Hmm...... because of JIRA, would it be easier to actually call this release 0.22?
  • Zlatin Balevsky at Apr 12, 2010 at 11:16 pm
    So, does this mean that everything that has been committed for 0.22 is actually going to be in 0.21? For example, symlinks were committed >to trunk for 0.22 according to JIRA.
    +1 for symlinks in next stable release and the associated refactoring of isFile, isDirectory, etc.


    _______________________________________________

    This e-mail may contain information that is confidential, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, do not duplicate or redistribute it by any means. Please delete it and any attachments and notify the sender that you have received it in error. Unless specifically indicated, this e-mail is not an offer to buy or sell or a solicitation to buy or sell any securities, investment products or other financial product or service, an official confirmation of any transaction, or an official statement of Barclays. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Barclays. This e-mail is subject to terms available at the following link: www.barcap.com/emaildisclaimer. By messaging with Barclays you consent to the foregoing. Barclays Capital is the investment banking division of Barclays Bank PLC, a company registered in England (number 1026167) with its registered office at 1 Churchill Place, London, E14 5HP. This email may relate to or be sent from other members of the Barclays Group.
    _______________________________________________
  • Tom White at Apr 12, 2010 at 11:28 pm

    On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
    So, does this mean that everything that has been committed for 0.22 is actually going to be in 0.21?  For example, symlinks were committed to trunk for 0.22 according to JIRA.
    Yes. Note that symlinks to date only work with the FileContext API, so
    they are not yet integrated with the shell, or MapReduce for example.
    Hmm...... because of JIRA, would it be easier to actually call this release 0.22?
    That's what I meant by updating JIRA - bulk changing everything fixed
    in 0.22 before the freeze date to be marked as being fixed in 0.21.

    Cheers,
    Tom
  • Allen Wittenauer at Apr 12, 2010 at 11:34 pm

    On Apr 12, 2010, at 4:28 PM, Tom White wrote:

    On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Allen Wittenauer
    wrote:
    So, does this mean that everything that has been committed for 0.22 is actually going to be in 0.21? For example, symlinks were committed to trunk for 0.22 according to JIRA.
    Yes. Note that symlinks to date only work with the FileContext API, so
    they are not yet integrated with the shell, or MapReduce for example.
    Hmm...... because of JIRA, would it be easier to actually call this release 0.22?
    That's what I meant by updating JIRA - bulk changing everything fixed
    in 0.22 before the freeze date to be marked as being fixed in 0.21.

    OK, thanks for clearing that up. :)

    *goes back to working on some things he wants to get in before freeze*

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupcommon-dev @
categorieshadoop
postedApr 9, '10 at 6:10p
activeApr 12, '10 at 11:34p
posts9
users6
websitehadoop.apache.org...
irc#hadoop

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase