Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>]

Bump up this thread after 6 months.

Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to start
the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.

I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines and
make more frequent releases in each line.

Thanks,
Weichiu


On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:

> I think that's a great suggestion.
> Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor release
> we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> previous one.
> I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having a
> more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help with
> this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much easier,
> which is currently a pain)
>
> I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
> non-LTS is one suggestion.
>
> Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more CVEs
> coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to update
> dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
>> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them for
>> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other non-LTS
>> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
>> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
>> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new LTS
>> release and upgrading to it.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <ru...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I vote
>>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
>>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily if
>>> they feel like upgrading at all,
>>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
>>>
>>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x and
>>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
>>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
>>> manage multiple release lines,
>>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Rupert
>>>
>>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
>>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
>>>
>>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the user
>>>> mailing lists.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
>>>> Please share your thoughts.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
>>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>>>>>
>>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<we...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:   Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
>>>>> discussion
>>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word "end
>>>>> of
>>>>> life" but consider these facts:
>>>>>
>>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
>>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is more
>>>>> than
>>>>> 15 months ago.
>>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for 2.9.3.
>>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using Hadoop
>>>>> 2.10
>>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
>>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple release
>>>>> line,
>>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
>>>>> 2.x, and
>>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Akira Ajisaka <aa...@apache.org>]

+1

Thanks,
Akira

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 5:51 PM lisheng.sun08 <li...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 on EOL of branch-2.9.
>
> Thanks,
> Lisheng Sun
>
>
>
> 发自我的小米手机
> 在 2020年8月27日 下午1:55，Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>写道：
>
> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>
> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
> start
> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>
> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines
> and
> make more frequent releases in each line.
>
> Thanks,
> Weichiu
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> release
> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > previous one.
> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having a
> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
> with
> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> easier,
> > which is currently a pain)
> >
> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> >
> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
> CVEs
> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> update
> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them
> for
> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
> non-LTS
> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
> LTS
> >> release and upgrading to it.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I vote
> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily if
> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> >>>
> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
> and
> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Rupert
> >>>
> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> >>>
> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> user
> >>>> mailing lists.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<we...@apache.org>
>
> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> >>>>> discussion
> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> "end
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is more
> >>>>> than
> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> 2.9.3.
> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.10
> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple release
> >>>>> line,
> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.x, and
> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To
> unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: user-help@hadoop.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Akira Ajisaka <aa...@apache.org>]

+1

Thanks,
Akira

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 5:51 PM lisheng.sun08 <li...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 on EOL of branch-2.9.
>
> Thanks,
> Lisheng Sun
>
>
>
> 发自我的小米手机
> 在 2020年8月27日 下午1:55，Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>写道：
>
> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>
> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
> start
> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>
> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines
> and
> make more frequent releases in each line.
>
> Thanks,
> Weichiu
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> release
> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > previous one.
> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having a
> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
> with
> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> easier,
> > which is currently a pain)
> >
> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> >
> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
> CVEs
> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> update
> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them
> for
> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
> non-LTS
> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
> LTS
> >> release and upgrading to it.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I vote
> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily if
> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> >>>
> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
> and
> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Rupert
> >>>
> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> >>>
> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> user
> >>>> mailing lists.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<we...@apache.org>
>
> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> >>>>> discussion
> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> "end
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is more
> >>>>> than
> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> 2.9.3.
> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.10
> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple release
> >>>>> line,
> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.x, and
> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To
> unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: user-help@hadoop.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Akira Ajisaka <aa...@apache.org>]

+1

Thanks,
Akira

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 5:51 PM lisheng.sun08 <li...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 on EOL of branch-2.9.
>
> Thanks,
> Lisheng Sun
>
>
>
> 发自我的小米手机
> 在 2020年8月27日 下午1:55，Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>写道：
>
> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>
> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
> start
> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>
> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines
> and
> make more frequent releases in each line.
>
> Thanks,
> Weichiu
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> release
> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > previous one.
> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having a
> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
> with
> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> easier,
> > which is currently a pain)
> >
> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> >
> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
> CVEs
> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> update
> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them
> for
> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
> non-LTS
> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
> LTS
> >> release and upgrading to it.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I vote
> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily if
> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> >>>
> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
> and
> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Rupert
> >>>
> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> >>>
> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> user
> >>>> mailing lists.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<we...@apache.org>
>
> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> >>>>> discussion
> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> "end
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is more
> >>>>> than
> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> 2.9.3.
> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.10
> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple release
> >>>>> line,
> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.x, and
> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To
> unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: user-help@hadoop.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Akira Ajisaka <aa...@apache.org>]

+1

Thanks,
Akira

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 5:51 PM lisheng.sun08 <li...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 on EOL of branch-2.9.
>
> Thanks,
> Lisheng Sun
>
>
>
> 发自我的小米手机
> 在 2020年8月27日 下午1:55，Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>写道：
>
> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>
> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
> start
> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>
> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines
> and
> make more frequent releases in each line.
>
> Thanks,
> Weichiu
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> release
> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > previous one.
> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having a
> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
> with
> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> easier,
> > which is currently a pain)
> >
> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> >
> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
> CVEs
> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> update
> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them
> for
> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
> non-LTS
> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
> LTS
> >> release and upgrading to it.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I vote
> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily if
> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> >>>
> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
> and
> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Rupert
> >>>
> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> >>>
> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> user
> >>>> mailing lists.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<we...@apache.org>
>
> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> >>>>> discussion
> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> "end
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is more
> >>>>> than
> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> 2.9.3.
> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.10
> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple release
> >>>>> line,
> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.x, and
> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To
> unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: user-help@hadoop.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Akira Ajisaka <aa...@apache.org>]

+1

Thanks,
Akira

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 5:51 PM lisheng.sun08 <li...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 on EOL of branch-2.9.
>
> Thanks,
> Lisheng Sun
>
>
>
> 发自我的小米手机
> 在 2020年8月27日 下午1:55，Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>写道：
>
> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>
> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
> start
> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>
> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines
> and
> make more frequent releases in each line.
>
> Thanks,
> Weichiu
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> release
> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > previous one.
> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having a
> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
> with
> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> easier,
> > which is currently a pain)
> >
> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> >
> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
> CVEs
> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> update
> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them
> for
> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
> non-LTS
> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
> LTS
> >> release and upgrading to it.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I vote
> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily if
> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> >>>
> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
> and
> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Rupert
> >>>
> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> >>>
> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> user
> >>>> mailing lists.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<we...@apache.org>
>
> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> >>>>> discussion
> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> "end
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is more
> >>>>> than
> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> 2.9.3.
> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.10
> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple release
> >>>>> line,
> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.x, and
> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To
> unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: user-help@hadoop.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

["lisheng.sun08" <li...@gmail.com>]

+1 on EOL of branch-2.9.  

  

Thanks,  

Lisheng Sun  

  

  

  

发自我的小米手机

在 2020年8月27日 下午1:55，Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>写道：  

> Bump up this thread after 6 months.  
>  
>  Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to start  
>  the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.  
>  
>  I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines and  
>  make more frequent releases in each line.  
>  
>  Thanks,  
>  Weichiu  
>  
>  
>  On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang
<[weichiu@apache.org](mailto:weichiu@apache.org)> wrote:  
>  
>  > I think that's a great suggestion.  
>  > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
release  
>  > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the  
>  > previous one.  
>  > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having a  
>  > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
with  
>  > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
easier,  
>  > which is currently a pain)  
>  >  
>  > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.  
>  > non-LTS is one suggestion.  
>  >  
>  > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to  
>  > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
CVEs  
>  > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.  
>  > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More  
>  > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
update  
>  > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?  
>  >  
>  > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak
<[idv@google.com.invalid](mailto:idv@google.com.invalid)>  
>  > wrote:  
>  >  
>  >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support  
>  >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them
for  
>  >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other non-LTS  
>  >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This  
>  >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide  
>  >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
LTS  
>  >> release and upgrading to it.  
>  >>  
>  >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco
<[rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com](mailto:rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com)>  
>  >> wrote:  
>  >>  
>  >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I vote  
>  >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.  
>  >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily if  
>  >>> they feel like upgrading at all,  
>  >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.  
>  >>>  
>  >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
and  
>  >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,  
>  >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to  
>  >>> manage multiple release lines,  
>  >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.  
>  >>>  
>  >>> Cheers  
>  >>> Rupert  
>  >>>  
>  >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang  
>  >>> <[weichiu@cloudera.com.invalid](mailto:weichiu@cloudera.com.invalid)>:  
>  >>>  
>  >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
user  
>  >>>> mailing lists.  
>  >>>>  
>  >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.  
>  >>>> Please share your thoughts.  
>  >>>>  
>  >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi  
>  >>>>
<[sree_at_chess@yahoo.com.invalid](mailto:sree_at_chess@yahoo.com.invalid)>
wrote:  
>  >>>>  
>  >>>>> +1  
>  >>>>>  
>  >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android  
>  >>>>>  
>  >>>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu
Chuang<[weichiu@apache.org](mailto:weichiu@apache.org)>  
>  >>>>> wrote: Hi,  
>  >>>>>  
>  >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a  
>  >>>>> discussion  
>  >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
"end  
>  >>>>> of  
>  >>>>> life" but consider these facts:  
>  >>>>>  
>  >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.  
>  >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is more  
>  >>>>> than  
>  >>>>> 15 months ago.  
>  >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
2.9.3.  
>  >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using Hadoop  
>  >>>>> 2.10  
>  >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.  
>  >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple release  
>  >>>>> line,  
>  >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.  
>  >>>>>  
>  >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop  
>  >>>>> 2.x, and  
>  >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x  
>  >>>>>  
>  >>>>> Thoughts?  
>  >>>>>  
>  >>>>>  
>

\--------------------------------------------------------------------- To
unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org For additional
commands, e-mail: user-help@hadoop.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Stephen O'Donnell <so...@cloudera.com.INVALID>]

+1 for EOL of 2.9.

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 1:17 PM Sunil Govindan <su...@apache.org> wrote:

> +1
>
> Thanks
> Sunil
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:49 PM Xiaoqiao He <xq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 for putting 2.9 release lines to EOL.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Hexiaoqiao
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:14 PM Mingliang Liu <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 for putting 2.9 lines to EOL.
> >>
> >> Let's focus on 2.10 releases for Hadoop 2. Also is there any plan for
> >> 2.10.1? It has been 11 months since 2.10 first release.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:57 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Bump up this thread after 6 months.
> >> >
> >> > Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
> >> start
> >> > the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
> >> >
> >> > I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release
> lines
> >> and
> >> > make more frequent releases in each line.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Weichiu
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I think that's a great suggestion.
> >> > > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> >> > release
> >> > > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> >> > > previous one.
> >> > > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
> >> Having a
> >> > > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should
> help
> >> > with
> >> > > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> >> > easier,
> >> > > which is currently a pain)
> >> > >
> >> > > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
> >> v.s.
> >> > > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> >> > >
> >> > > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> >> > > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as
> more
> >> > CVEs
> >> > > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> >> > > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes.
> More
> >> > > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> >> > update
> >> > > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
> >> change?
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <idv@google.com.invalid
> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and
> support
> >> > >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
> >> them
> >> > for
> >> > >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
> >> non-LTS
> >> > >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release).
> This
> >> > >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
> >> provide
> >> > >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for
> new
> >> > LTS
> >> > >> release and upgrading to it.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> >> > rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
> >> vote
> >> > >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> >> > >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x
> easily
> >> if
> >> > >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> >> > >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there
> 3.1.x
> >> > and
> >> > >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> >> > >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> >> > >>> manage multiple release lines,
> >> > >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Cheers
> >> > >>> Rupert
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> >> > >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to
> the
> >> > user
> >> > >>>> mailing lists.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop
> 2.9.
> >> > >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> >> > >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>> +1
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
> >> weichiu@apache.org
> >> > >
> >> > >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> >> > >>>>> discussion
> >> > >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the
> word
> >> > "end
> >> > >>>>> of
> >> > >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> >> > >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
> >> more
> >> > >>>>> than
> >> > >>>>> 15 months ago.
> >> > >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> >> > 2.9.3.
> >> > >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
> >> Hadoop
> >> > >>>>> 2.10
> >> > >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> >> > >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
> >> release
> >> > >>>>> line,
> >> > >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in
> Hadoop
> >> > >>>>> 2.x, and
> >> > >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>> Thoughts?
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> L
> >>
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Stephen O'Donnell <so...@cloudera.com.INVALID>]

+1 for EOL of 2.9.

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 1:17 PM Sunil Govindan <su...@apache.org> wrote:

> +1
>
> Thanks
> Sunil
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:49 PM Xiaoqiao He <xq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 for putting 2.9 release lines to EOL.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Hexiaoqiao
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:14 PM Mingliang Liu <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 for putting 2.9 lines to EOL.
> >>
> >> Let's focus on 2.10 releases for Hadoop 2. Also is there any plan for
> >> 2.10.1? It has been 11 months since 2.10 first release.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:57 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Bump up this thread after 6 months.
> >> >
> >> > Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
> >> start
> >> > the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
> >> >
> >> > I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release
> lines
> >> and
> >> > make more frequent releases in each line.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Weichiu
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I think that's a great suggestion.
> >> > > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> >> > release
> >> > > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> >> > > previous one.
> >> > > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
> >> Having a
> >> > > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should
> help
> >> > with
> >> > > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> >> > easier,
> >> > > which is currently a pain)
> >> > >
> >> > > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
> >> v.s.
> >> > > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> >> > >
> >> > > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> >> > > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as
> more
> >> > CVEs
> >> > > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> >> > > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes.
> More
> >> > > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> >> > update
> >> > > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
> >> change?
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <idv@google.com.invalid
> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and
> support
> >> > >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
> >> them
> >> > for
> >> > >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
> >> non-LTS
> >> > >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release).
> This
> >> > >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
> >> provide
> >> > >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for
> new
> >> > LTS
> >> > >> release and upgrading to it.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> >> > rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
> >> vote
> >> > >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> >> > >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x
> easily
> >> if
> >> > >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> >> > >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there
> 3.1.x
> >> > and
> >> > >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> >> > >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> >> > >>> manage multiple release lines,
> >> > >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Cheers
> >> > >>> Rupert
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> >> > >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to
> the
> >> > user
> >> > >>>> mailing lists.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop
> 2.9.
> >> > >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> >> > >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>> +1
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
> >> weichiu@apache.org
> >> > >
> >> > >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> >> > >>>>> discussion
> >> > >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the
> word
> >> > "end
> >> > >>>>> of
> >> > >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> >> > >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
> >> more
> >> > >>>>> than
> >> > >>>>> 15 months ago.
> >> > >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> >> > 2.9.3.
> >> > >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
> >> Hadoop
> >> > >>>>> 2.10
> >> > >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> >> > >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
> >> release
> >> > >>>>> line,
> >> > >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in
> Hadoop
> >> > >>>>> 2.x, and
> >> > >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>> Thoughts?
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> L
> >>
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Sunil Govindan <su...@apache.org>]

+1

Thanks
Sunil

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:49 PM Xiaoqiao He <xq...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for putting 2.9 release lines to EOL.
>
> Thanks,
> Hexiaoqiao
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:14 PM Mingliang Liu <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 for putting 2.9 lines to EOL.
>>
>> Let's focus on 2.10 releases for Hadoop 2. Also is there any plan for
>> 2.10.1? It has been 11 months since 2.10 first release.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:57 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>> >
>> > Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
>> start
>> > the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>> >
>> > I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines
>> and
>> > make more frequent releases in each line.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Weichiu
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I think that's a great suggestion.
>> > > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
>> > release
>> > > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
>> > > previous one.
>> > > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
>> Having a
>> > > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
>> > with
>> > > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
>> > easier,
>> > > which is currently a pain)
>> > >
>> > > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
>> v.s.
>> > > non-LTS is one suggestion.
>> > >
>> > > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
>> > > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
>> > CVEs
>> > > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
>> > > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
>> > > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
>> > update
>> > > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
>> change?
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
>> > >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
>> them
>> > for
>> > >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
>> non-LTS
>> > >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
>> > >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
>> provide
>> > >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
>> > LTS
>> > >> release and upgrading to it.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
>> > rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
>> vote
>> > >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
>> > >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily
>> if
>> > >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
>> > >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
>> > and
>> > >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
>> > >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
>> > >>> manage multiple release lines,
>> > >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Cheers
>> > >>> Rupert
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
>> > >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
>> > user
>> > >>>> mailing lists.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
>> > >>>> Please share your thoughts.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
>> > >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> +1
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
>> weichiu@apache.org
>> > >
>> > >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
>> > >>>>> discussion
>> > >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
>> > "end
>> > >>>>> of
>> > >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
>> > >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
>> more
>> > >>>>> than
>> > >>>>> 15 months ago.
>> > >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
>> > 2.9.3.
>> > >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
>> Hadoop
>> > >>>>> 2.10
>> > >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
>> > >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
>> release
>> > >>>>> line,
>> > >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
>> > >>>>> 2.x, and
>> > >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Thoughts?
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> L
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Sunil Govindan <su...@apache.org>]

+1

Thanks
Sunil

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:49 PM Xiaoqiao He <xq...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for putting 2.9 release lines to EOL.
>
> Thanks,
> Hexiaoqiao
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:14 PM Mingliang Liu <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 for putting 2.9 lines to EOL.
>>
>> Let's focus on 2.10 releases for Hadoop 2. Also is there any plan for
>> 2.10.1? It has been 11 months since 2.10 first release.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:57 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>> >
>> > Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
>> start
>> > the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>> >
>> > I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines
>> and
>> > make more frequent releases in each line.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Weichiu
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I think that's a great suggestion.
>> > > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
>> > release
>> > > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
>> > > previous one.
>> > > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
>> Having a
>> > > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
>> > with
>> > > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
>> > easier,
>> > > which is currently a pain)
>> > >
>> > > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
>> v.s.
>> > > non-LTS is one suggestion.
>> > >
>> > > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
>> > > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
>> > CVEs
>> > > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
>> > > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
>> > > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
>> > update
>> > > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
>> change?
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
>> > >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
>> them
>> > for
>> > >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
>> non-LTS
>> > >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
>> > >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
>> provide
>> > >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
>> > LTS
>> > >> release and upgrading to it.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
>> > rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
>> vote
>> > >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
>> > >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily
>> if
>> > >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
>> > >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
>> > and
>> > >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
>> > >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
>> > >>> manage multiple release lines,
>> > >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Cheers
>> > >>> Rupert
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
>> > >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
>> > user
>> > >>>> mailing lists.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
>> > >>>> Please share your thoughts.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
>> > >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> +1
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
>> weichiu@apache.org
>> > >
>> > >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
>> > >>>>> discussion
>> > >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
>> > "end
>> > >>>>> of
>> > >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
>> > >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
>> more
>> > >>>>> than
>> > >>>>> 15 months ago.
>> > >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
>> > 2.9.3.
>> > >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
>> Hadoop
>> > >>>>> 2.10
>> > >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
>> > >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
>> release
>> > >>>>> line,
>> > >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
>> > >>>>> 2.x, and
>> > >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Thoughts?
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> L
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Sunil Govindan <su...@apache.org>]

+1

Thanks
Sunil

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:49 PM Xiaoqiao He <xq...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for putting 2.9 release lines to EOL.
>
> Thanks,
> Hexiaoqiao
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:14 PM Mingliang Liu <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 for putting 2.9 lines to EOL.
>>
>> Let's focus on 2.10 releases for Hadoop 2. Also is there any plan for
>> 2.10.1? It has been 11 months since 2.10 first release.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:57 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>> >
>> > Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
>> start
>> > the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>> >
>> > I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines
>> and
>> > make more frequent releases in each line.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Weichiu
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I think that's a great suggestion.
>> > > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
>> > release
>> > > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
>> > > previous one.
>> > > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
>> Having a
>> > > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
>> > with
>> > > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
>> > easier,
>> > > which is currently a pain)
>> > >
>> > > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
>> v.s.
>> > > non-LTS is one suggestion.
>> > >
>> > > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
>> > > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
>> > CVEs
>> > > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
>> > > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
>> > > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
>> > update
>> > > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
>> change?
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
>> > >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
>> them
>> > for
>> > >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
>> non-LTS
>> > >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
>> > >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
>> provide
>> > >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
>> > LTS
>> > >> release and upgrading to it.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
>> > rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
>> vote
>> > >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
>> > >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily
>> if
>> > >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
>> > >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
>> > and
>> > >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
>> > >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
>> > >>> manage multiple release lines,
>> > >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Cheers
>> > >>> Rupert
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
>> > >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
>> > user
>> > >>>> mailing lists.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
>> > >>>> Please share your thoughts.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
>> > >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> +1
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
>> weichiu@apache.org
>> > >
>> > >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
>> > >>>>> discussion
>> > >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
>> > "end
>> > >>>>> of
>> > >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
>> > >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
>> more
>> > >>>>> than
>> > >>>>> 15 months ago.
>> > >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
>> > 2.9.3.
>> > >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
>> Hadoop
>> > >>>>> 2.10
>> > >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
>> > >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
>> release
>> > >>>>> line,
>> > >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
>> > >>>>> 2.x, and
>> > >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Thoughts?
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> L
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Sunil Govindan <su...@apache.org>]

+1

Thanks
Sunil

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:49 PM Xiaoqiao He <xq...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for putting 2.9 release lines to EOL.
>
> Thanks,
> Hexiaoqiao
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:14 PM Mingliang Liu <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 for putting 2.9 lines to EOL.
>>
>> Let's focus on 2.10 releases for Hadoop 2. Also is there any plan for
>> 2.10.1? It has been 11 months since 2.10 first release.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:57 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>> >
>> > Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
>> start
>> > the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>> >
>> > I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines
>> and
>> > make more frequent releases in each line.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Weichiu
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I think that's a great suggestion.
>> > > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
>> > release
>> > > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
>> > > previous one.
>> > > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
>> Having a
>> > > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
>> > with
>> > > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
>> > easier,
>> > > which is currently a pain)
>> > >
>> > > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
>> v.s.
>> > > non-LTS is one suggestion.
>> > >
>> > > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
>> > > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
>> > CVEs
>> > > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
>> > > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
>> > > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
>> > update
>> > > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
>> change?
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
>> > >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
>> them
>> > for
>> > >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
>> non-LTS
>> > >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
>> > >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
>> provide
>> > >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
>> > LTS
>> > >> release and upgrading to it.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
>> > rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
>> vote
>> > >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
>> > >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily
>> if
>> > >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
>> > >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
>> > and
>> > >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
>> > >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
>> > >>> manage multiple release lines,
>> > >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Cheers
>> > >>> Rupert
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
>> > >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
>> > user
>> > >>>> mailing lists.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
>> > >>>> Please share your thoughts.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
>> > >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> +1
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
>> weichiu@apache.org
>> > >
>> > >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
>> > >>>>> discussion
>> > >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
>> > "end
>> > >>>>> of
>> > >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
>> > >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
>> more
>> > >>>>> than
>> > >>>>> 15 months ago.
>> > >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
>> > 2.9.3.
>> > >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
>> Hadoop
>> > >>>>> 2.10
>> > >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
>> > >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
>> release
>> > >>>>> line,
>> > >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
>> > >>>>> 2.x, and
>> > >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Thoughts?
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> L
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Sunil Govindan <su...@apache.org>]

+1

Thanks
Sunil

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:49 PM Xiaoqiao He <xq...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for putting 2.9 release lines to EOL.
>
> Thanks,
> Hexiaoqiao
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:14 PM Mingliang Liu <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 for putting 2.9 lines to EOL.
>>
>> Let's focus on 2.10 releases for Hadoop 2. Also is there any plan for
>> 2.10.1? It has been 11 months since 2.10 first release.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:57 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>> >
>> > Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
>> start
>> > the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>> >
>> > I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines
>> and
>> > make more frequent releases in each line.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Weichiu
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I think that's a great suggestion.
>> > > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
>> > release
>> > > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
>> > > previous one.
>> > > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
>> Having a
>> > > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
>> > with
>> > > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
>> > easier,
>> > > which is currently a pain)
>> > >
>> > > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
>> v.s.
>> > > non-LTS is one suggestion.
>> > >
>> > > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
>> > > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
>> > CVEs
>> > > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
>> > > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
>> > > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
>> > update
>> > > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
>> change?
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
>> > >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
>> them
>> > for
>> > >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
>> non-LTS
>> > >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
>> > >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
>> provide
>> > >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
>> > LTS
>> > >> release and upgrading to it.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
>> > rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
>> vote
>> > >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
>> > >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily
>> if
>> > >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
>> > >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
>> > and
>> > >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
>> > >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
>> > >>> manage multiple release lines,
>> > >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Cheers
>> > >>> Rupert
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
>> > >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
>> > user
>> > >>>> mailing lists.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
>> > >>>> Please share your thoughts.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
>> > >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> +1
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
>> weichiu@apache.org
>> > >
>> > >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
>> > >>>>> discussion
>> > >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
>> > "end
>> > >>>>> of
>> > >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
>> > >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
>> more
>> > >>>>> than
>> > >>>>> 15 months ago.
>> > >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
>> > 2.9.3.
>> > >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
>> Hadoop
>> > >>>>> 2.10
>> > >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
>> > >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
>> release
>> > >>>>> line,
>> > >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
>> > >>>>> 2.x, and
>> > >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Thoughts?
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> L
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Xiaoqiao He <xq...@gmail.com>]

+1 for putting 2.9 release lines to EOL.

Thanks,
Hexiaoqiao

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:14 PM Mingliang Liu <li...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for putting 2.9 lines to EOL.
>
> Let's focus on 2.10 releases for Hadoop 2. Also is there any plan for
> 2.10.1? It has been 11 months since 2.10 first release.
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:57 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Bump up this thread after 6 months.
> >
> > Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
> start
> > the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
> >
> > I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines
> and
> > make more frequent releases in each line.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Weichiu
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> > release
> > > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > > previous one.
> > > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having
> a
> > > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
> > with
> > > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> > easier,
> > > which is currently a pain)
> > >
> > > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
> > > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> > >
> > > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
> > CVEs
> > > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> > > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> > update
> > > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> > >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them
> > for
> > >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
> non-LTS
> > >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> > >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
> > >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
> > LTS
> > >> release and upgrading to it.
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> > rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
> vote
> > >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> > >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily
> if
> > >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> > >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> > >>>
> > >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
> > and
> > >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> > >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> > >>> manage multiple release lines,
> > >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers
> > >>> Rupert
> > >>>
> > >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> > >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> > user
> > >>>> mailing lists.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> > >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> > >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> +1
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
> weichiu@apache.org
> > >
> > >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> > >>>>> discussion
> > >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> > "end
> > >>>>> of
> > >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> > >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
> more
> > >>>>> than
> > >>>>> 15 months ago.
> > >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> > 2.9.3.
> > >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
> Hadoop
> > >>>>> 2.10
> > >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> > >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
> release
> > >>>>> line,
> > >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> > >>>>> 2.x, and
> > >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thoughts?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> >
>
>
> --
> L
>

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Xiaoqiao He <xq...@gmail.com>]

+1 for putting 2.9 release lines to EOL.

Thanks,
Hexiaoqiao

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:14 PM Mingliang Liu <li...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for putting 2.9 lines to EOL.
>
> Let's focus on 2.10 releases for Hadoop 2. Also is there any plan for
> 2.10.1? It has been 11 months since 2.10 first release.
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:57 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Bump up this thread after 6 months.
> >
> > Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
> start
> > the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
> >
> > I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines
> and
> > make more frequent releases in each line.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Weichiu
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> > release
> > > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > > previous one.
> > > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having
> a
> > > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
> > with
> > > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> > easier,
> > > which is currently a pain)
> > >
> > > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
> > > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> > >
> > > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
> > CVEs
> > > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> > > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> > update
> > > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> > >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them
> > for
> > >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
> non-LTS
> > >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> > >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
> > >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
> > LTS
> > >> release and upgrading to it.
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> > rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
> vote
> > >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> > >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily
> if
> > >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> > >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> > >>>
> > >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
> > and
> > >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> > >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> > >>> manage multiple release lines,
> > >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers
> > >>> Rupert
> > >>>
> > >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> > >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> > user
> > >>>> mailing lists.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> > >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> > >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> +1
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
> weichiu@apache.org
> > >
> > >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> > >>>>> discussion
> > >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> > "end
> > >>>>> of
> > >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> > >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
> more
> > >>>>> than
> > >>>>> 15 months ago.
> > >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> > 2.9.3.
> > >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
> Hadoop
> > >>>>> 2.10
> > >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> > >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
> release
> > >>>>> line,
> > >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> > >>>>> 2.x, and
> > >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thoughts?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> >
>
>
> --
> L
>

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Xiaoqiao He <xq...@gmail.com>]

+1 for putting 2.9 release lines to EOL.

Thanks,
Hexiaoqiao

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:14 PM Mingliang Liu <li...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for putting 2.9 lines to EOL.
>
> Let's focus on 2.10 releases for Hadoop 2. Also is there any plan for
> 2.10.1? It has been 11 months since 2.10 first release.
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:57 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Bump up this thread after 6 months.
> >
> > Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
> start
> > the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
> >
> > I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines
> and
> > make more frequent releases in each line.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Weichiu
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> > release
> > > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > > previous one.
> > > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having
> a
> > > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
> > with
> > > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> > easier,
> > > which is currently a pain)
> > >
> > > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
> > > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> > >
> > > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
> > CVEs
> > > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> > > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> > update
> > > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> > >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them
> > for
> > >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
> non-LTS
> > >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> > >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
> > >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
> > LTS
> > >> release and upgrading to it.
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> > rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
> vote
> > >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> > >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily
> if
> > >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> > >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> > >>>
> > >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
> > and
> > >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> > >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> > >>> manage multiple release lines,
> > >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers
> > >>> Rupert
> > >>>
> > >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> > >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> > user
> > >>>> mailing lists.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> > >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> > >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> +1
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
> weichiu@apache.org
> > >
> > >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> > >>>>> discussion
> > >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> > "end
> > >>>>> of
> > >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> > >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
> more
> > >>>>> than
> > >>>>> 15 months ago.
> > >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> > 2.9.3.
> > >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
> Hadoop
> > >>>>> 2.10
> > >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> > >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
> release
> > >>>>> line,
> > >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> > >>>>> 2.x, and
> > >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thoughts?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> >
>
>
> --
> L
>

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Xiaoqiao He <xq...@gmail.com>]

+1 for putting 2.9 release lines to EOL.

Thanks,
Hexiaoqiao

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:14 PM Mingliang Liu <li...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for putting 2.9 lines to EOL.
>
> Let's focus on 2.10 releases for Hadoop 2. Also is there any plan for
> 2.10.1? It has been 11 months since 2.10 first release.
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:57 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Bump up this thread after 6 months.
> >
> > Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
> start
> > the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
> >
> > I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines
> and
> > make more frequent releases in each line.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Weichiu
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> > release
> > > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > > previous one.
> > > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having
> a
> > > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
> > with
> > > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> > easier,
> > > which is currently a pain)
> > >
> > > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
> > > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> > >
> > > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
> > CVEs
> > > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> > > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> > update
> > > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> > >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them
> > for
> > >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
> non-LTS
> > >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> > >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
> > >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
> > LTS
> > >> release and upgrading to it.
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> > rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
> vote
> > >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> > >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily
> if
> > >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> > >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> > >>>
> > >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
> > and
> > >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> > >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> > >>> manage multiple release lines,
> > >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers
> > >>> Rupert
> > >>>
> > >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> > >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> > user
> > >>>> mailing lists.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> > >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> > >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> +1
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
> weichiu@apache.org
> > >
> > >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> > >>>>> discussion
> > >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> > "end
> > >>>>> of
> > >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> > >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
> more
> > >>>>> than
> > >>>>> 15 months ago.
> > >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> > 2.9.3.
> > >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
> Hadoop
> > >>>>> 2.10
> > >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> > >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
> release
> > >>>>> line,
> > >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> > >>>>> 2.x, and
> > >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thoughts?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> >
>
>
> --
> L
>

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Xiaoqiao He <xq...@gmail.com>]

+1 for putting 2.9 release lines to EOL.

Thanks,
Hexiaoqiao

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:14 PM Mingliang Liu <li...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for putting 2.9 lines to EOL.
>
> Let's focus on 2.10 releases for Hadoop 2. Also is there any plan for
> 2.10.1? It has been 11 months since 2.10 first release.
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:57 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Bump up this thread after 6 months.
> >
> > Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
> start
> > the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
> >
> > I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines
> and
> > make more frequent releases in each line.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Weichiu
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> > release
> > > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > > previous one.
> > > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having
> a
> > > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
> > with
> > > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> > easier,
> > > which is currently a pain)
> > >
> > > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
> > > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> > >
> > > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
> > CVEs
> > > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> > > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> > update
> > > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> > >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them
> > for
> > >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
> non-LTS
> > >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> > >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
> > >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
> > LTS
> > >> release and upgrading to it.
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> > rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
> vote
> > >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> > >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily
> if
> > >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> > >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> > >>>
> > >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
> > and
> > >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> > >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> > >>> manage multiple release lines,
> > >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers
> > >>> Rupert
> > >>>
> > >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> > >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> > user
> > >>>> mailing lists.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> > >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> > >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> +1
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
> weichiu@apache.org
> > >
> > >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> > >>>>> discussion
> > >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> > "end
> > >>>>> of
> > >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> > >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
> more
> > >>>>> than
> > >>>>> 15 months ago.
> > >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> > 2.9.3.
> > >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
> Hadoop
> > >>>>> 2.10
> > >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> > >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
> release
> > >>>>> line,
> > >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> > >>>>> 2.x, and
> > >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thoughts?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> >
>
>
> --
> L
>

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Mingliang Liu <li...@gmail.com>]

+1 for putting 2.9 lines to EOL.

Let's focus on 2.10 releases for Hadoop 2. Also is there any plan for
2.10.1? It has been 11 months since 2.10 first release.

Thanks,

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:57 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:

> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>
> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to start
> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>
> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines and
> make more frequent releases in each line.
>
> Thanks,
> Weichiu
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> release
> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > previous one.
> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having a
> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
> with
> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> easier,
> > which is currently a pain)
> >
> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> >
> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
> CVEs
> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> update
> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them
> for
> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other non-LTS
> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
> LTS
> >> release and upgrading to it.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I vote
> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily if
> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> >>>
> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
> and
> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Rupert
> >>>
> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> >>>
> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> user
> >>>> mailing lists.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<weichiu@apache.org
> >
> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> >>>>> discussion
> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> "end
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is more
> >>>>> than
> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> 2.9.3.
> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.10
> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple release
> >>>>> line,
> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.x, and
> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
>


-- 
L

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Masatake Iwasaki <iw...@oss.nttdata.co.jp>]

+1 on EOL of branch-2.9.

Since there are a lot of backported fixes in branch-2.10 after 2.10.0 
(2019 Oct 29),
it would be nice to release 2.10.1.
I'm happy to help release work.

Masatake Iwasaki

On 2020/08/28 3:25, Mingliang Liu wrote:
>> are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to
> backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
>
> The branch-2 is gone. I think you mean branch-2.10, Steve.
>
> Many HBase users are still using Hadoop 2, so I hope Hadoop 2.10.x should
> still be released at least every 12 months. If there is no volunteer for
> 2.10.1 RM, I can see how I can help.
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 8:55 AM John Zhuge <jz...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:01 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> -Ayush
>>>
>>>> On 27-Aug-2020, at 6:24 PM, Steve Loughran <stevel@cloudera.com.invalid
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need
>> to
>>> backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
>>> start
>>>>> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release
>> lines
>>> and
>>>>> make more frequent releases in each line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Weichiu
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I think that's a great suggestion.
>>>>>> Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
>>> release
>>>>>> we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
>>>>>> previous one.
>>>>>> I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
>>> Having a
>>>>>> more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should
>>> help with
>>>>>> this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
>>> easier,
>>>>>> which is currently a pain)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
>>> v.s.
>>>>>> non-LTS is one suggestion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
>>>>>> maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as
>>> more CVEs
>>>>>> coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
>>>>>> In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes.
>> More
>>>>>> recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
>>> update
>>>>>> dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
>>> change?
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <idv@google.com.invalid
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and
>> support
>>>>>>> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
>>> them for
>>>>>>> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
>>> non-LTS
>>>>>>> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release).
>> This
>>>>>>> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
>>> provide
>>>>>>> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for
>>> new LTS
>>>>>>> release and upgrading to it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
>>> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
>>> vote
>>>>>>>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
>>>>>>>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x
>> easily
>>> if
>>>>>>>> they feel like upgrading at all,
>>>>>>>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there
>>> 3.1.x and
>>>>>>>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
>>>>>>>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
>>>>>>>> manage multiple release lines,
>>>>>>>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>> Rupert
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
>>>>>>>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to
>> the
>>> user
>>>>>>>>> mailing lists.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop
>> 2.9.
>>>>>>>>> Please share your thoughts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
>>>>>>>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
>>> weichiu@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
>>>>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the
>> word
>>> "end
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> life" but consider these facts:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
>>>>>>>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
>>> more
>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>> 15 months ago.
>>>>>>>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
>>> 2.9.3.
>>>>>>>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
>>> Hadoop
>>>>>>>>>> 2.10
>>>>>>>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
>>>>>>>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
>>> release
>>>>>>>>>> line,
>>>>>>>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in
>> Hadoop
>>>>>>>>>> 2.x, and
>>>>>>>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> --
>> John Zhuge
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Masatake Iwasaki <iw...@oss.nttdata.co.jp>]

+1 on EOL of branch-2.9.

Since there are a lot of backported fixes in branch-2.10 after 2.10.0 
(2019 Oct 29),
it would be nice to release 2.10.1.
I'm happy to help release work.

Masatake Iwasaki

On 2020/08/28 3:25, Mingliang Liu wrote:
>> are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to
> backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
>
> The branch-2 is gone. I think you mean branch-2.10, Steve.
>
> Many HBase users are still using Hadoop 2, so I hope Hadoop 2.10.x should
> still be released at least every 12 months. If there is no volunteer for
> 2.10.1 RM, I can see how I can help.
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 8:55 AM John Zhuge <jz...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:01 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> -Ayush
>>>
>>>> On 27-Aug-2020, at 6:24 PM, Steve Loughran <stevel@cloudera.com.invalid
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need
>> to
>>> backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
>>> start
>>>>> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release
>> lines
>>> and
>>>>> make more frequent releases in each line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Weichiu
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I think that's a great suggestion.
>>>>>> Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
>>> release
>>>>>> we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
>>>>>> previous one.
>>>>>> I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
>>> Having a
>>>>>> more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should
>>> help with
>>>>>> this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
>>> easier,
>>>>>> which is currently a pain)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
>>> v.s.
>>>>>> non-LTS is one suggestion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
>>>>>> maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as
>>> more CVEs
>>>>>> coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
>>>>>> In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes.
>> More
>>>>>> recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
>>> update
>>>>>> dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
>>> change?
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <idv@google.com.invalid
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and
>> support
>>>>>>> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
>>> them for
>>>>>>> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
>>> non-LTS
>>>>>>> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release).
>> This
>>>>>>> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
>>> provide
>>>>>>> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for
>>> new LTS
>>>>>>> release and upgrading to it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
>>> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
>>> vote
>>>>>>>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
>>>>>>>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x
>> easily
>>> if
>>>>>>>> they feel like upgrading at all,
>>>>>>>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there
>>> 3.1.x and
>>>>>>>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
>>>>>>>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
>>>>>>>> manage multiple release lines,
>>>>>>>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>> Rupert
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
>>>>>>>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to
>> the
>>> user
>>>>>>>>> mailing lists.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop
>> 2.9.
>>>>>>>>> Please share your thoughts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
>>>>>>>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
>>> weichiu@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
>>>>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the
>> word
>>> "end
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> life" but consider these facts:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
>>>>>>>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
>>> more
>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>> 15 months ago.
>>>>>>>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
>>> 2.9.3.
>>>>>>>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
>>> Hadoop
>>>>>>>>>> 2.10
>>>>>>>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
>>>>>>>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
>>> release
>>>>>>>>>> line,
>>>>>>>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in
>> Hadoop
>>>>>>>>>> 2.x, and
>>>>>>>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> --
>> John Zhuge
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Masatake Iwasaki <iw...@oss.nttdata.co.jp>]

+1 on EOL of branch-2.9.

Since there are a lot of backported fixes in branch-2.10 after 2.10.0 
(2019 Oct 29),
it would be nice to release 2.10.1.
I'm happy to help release work.

Masatake Iwasaki

On 2020/08/28 3:25, Mingliang Liu wrote:
>> are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to
> backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
>
> The branch-2 is gone. I think you mean branch-2.10, Steve.
>
> Many HBase users are still using Hadoop 2, so I hope Hadoop 2.10.x should
> still be released at least every 12 months. If there is no volunteer for
> 2.10.1 RM, I can see how I can help.
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 8:55 AM John Zhuge <jz...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:01 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> -Ayush
>>>
>>>> On 27-Aug-2020, at 6:24 PM, Steve Loughran <stevel@cloudera.com.invalid
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need
>> to
>>> backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
>>> start
>>>>> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release
>> lines
>>> and
>>>>> make more frequent releases in each line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Weichiu
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I think that's a great suggestion.
>>>>>> Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
>>> release
>>>>>> we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
>>>>>> previous one.
>>>>>> I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
>>> Having a
>>>>>> more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should
>>> help with
>>>>>> this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
>>> easier,
>>>>>> which is currently a pain)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
>>> v.s.
>>>>>> non-LTS is one suggestion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
>>>>>> maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as
>>> more CVEs
>>>>>> coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
>>>>>> In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes.
>> More
>>>>>> recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
>>> update
>>>>>> dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
>>> change?
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <idv@google.com.invalid
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and
>> support
>>>>>>> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
>>> them for
>>>>>>> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
>>> non-LTS
>>>>>>> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release).
>> This
>>>>>>> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
>>> provide
>>>>>>> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for
>>> new LTS
>>>>>>> release and upgrading to it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
>>> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
>>> vote
>>>>>>>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
>>>>>>>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x
>> easily
>>> if
>>>>>>>> they feel like upgrading at all,
>>>>>>>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there
>>> 3.1.x and
>>>>>>>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
>>>>>>>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
>>>>>>>> manage multiple release lines,
>>>>>>>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>> Rupert
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
>>>>>>>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to
>> the
>>> user
>>>>>>>>> mailing lists.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop
>> 2.9.
>>>>>>>>> Please share your thoughts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
>>>>>>>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
>>> weichiu@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
>>>>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the
>> word
>>> "end
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> life" but consider these facts:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
>>>>>>>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
>>> more
>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>> 15 months ago.
>>>>>>>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
>>> 2.9.3.
>>>>>>>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
>>> Hadoop
>>>>>>>>>> 2.10
>>>>>>>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
>>>>>>>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
>>> release
>>>>>>>>>> line,
>>>>>>>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in
>> Hadoop
>>>>>>>>>> 2.x, and
>>>>>>>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> --
>> John Zhuge
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@hadoop.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Masatake Iwasaki <iw...@oss.nttdata.co.jp>]

+1 on EOL of branch-2.9.

Since there are a lot of backported fixes in branch-2.10 after 2.10.0 
(2019 Oct 29),
it would be nice to release 2.10.1.
I'm happy to help release work.

Masatake Iwasaki

On 2020/08/28 3:25, Mingliang Liu wrote:
>> are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to
> backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
>
> The branch-2 is gone. I think you mean branch-2.10, Steve.
>
> Many HBase users are still using Hadoop 2, so I hope Hadoop 2.10.x should
> still be released at least every 12 months. If there is no volunteer for
> 2.10.1 RM, I can see how I can help.
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 8:55 AM John Zhuge <jz...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:01 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> -Ayush
>>>
>>>> On 27-Aug-2020, at 6:24 PM, Steve Loughran <stevel@cloudera.com.invalid
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need
>> to
>>> backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
>>> start
>>>>> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release
>> lines
>>> and
>>>>> make more frequent releases in each line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Weichiu
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I think that's a great suggestion.
>>>>>> Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
>>> release
>>>>>> we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
>>>>>> previous one.
>>>>>> I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
>>> Having a
>>>>>> more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should
>>> help with
>>>>>> this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
>>> easier,
>>>>>> which is currently a pain)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
>>> v.s.
>>>>>> non-LTS is one suggestion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
>>>>>> maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as
>>> more CVEs
>>>>>> coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
>>>>>> In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes.
>> More
>>>>>> recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
>>> update
>>>>>> dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
>>> change?
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <idv@google.com.invalid
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and
>> support
>>>>>>> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
>>> them for
>>>>>>> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
>>> non-LTS
>>>>>>> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release).
>> This
>>>>>>> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
>>> provide
>>>>>>> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for
>>> new LTS
>>>>>>> release and upgrading to it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
>>> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
>>> vote
>>>>>>>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
>>>>>>>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x
>> easily
>>> if
>>>>>>>> they feel like upgrading at all,
>>>>>>>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there
>>> 3.1.x and
>>>>>>>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
>>>>>>>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
>>>>>>>> manage multiple release lines,
>>>>>>>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>> Rupert
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
>>>>>>>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to
>> the
>>> user
>>>>>>>>> mailing lists.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop
>> 2.9.
>>>>>>>>> Please share your thoughts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
>>>>>>>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
>>> weichiu@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
>>>>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the
>> word
>>> "end
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> life" but consider these facts:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
>>>>>>>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
>>> more
>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>> 15 months ago.
>>>>>>>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
>>> 2.9.3.
>>>>>>>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
>>> Hadoop
>>>>>>>>>> 2.10
>>>>>>>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
>>>>>>>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
>>> release
>>>>>>>>>> line,
>>>>>>>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in
>> Hadoop
>>>>>>>>>> 2.x, and
>>>>>>>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> --
>> John Zhuge
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Masatake Iwasaki <iw...@oss.nttdata.co.jp>]

+1 on EOL of branch-2.9.

Since there are a lot of backported fixes in branch-2.10 after 2.10.0 
(2019 Oct 29),
it would be nice to release 2.10.1.
I'm happy to help release work.

Masatake Iwasaki

On 2020/08/28 3:25, Mingliang Liu wrote:
>> are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to
> backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
>
> The branch-2 is gone. I think you mean branch-2.10, Steve.
>
> Many HBase users are still using Hadoop 2, so I hope Hadoop 2.10.x should
> still be released at least every 12 months. If there is no volunteer for
> 2.10.1 RM, I can see how I can help.
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 8:55 AM John Zhuge <jz...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:01 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> -Ayush
>>>
>>>> On 27-Aug-2020, at 6:24 PM, Steve Loughran <stevel@cloudera.com.invalid
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need
>> to
>>> backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
>>> start
>>>>> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release
>> lines
>>> and
>>>>> make more frequent releases in each line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Weichiu
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I think that's a great suggestion.
>>>>>> Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
>>> release
>>>>>> we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
>>>>>> previous one.
>>>>>> I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
>>> Having a
>>>>>> more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should
>>> help with
>>>>>> this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
>>> easier,
>>>>>> which is currently a pain)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
>>> v.s.
>>>>>> non-LTS is one suggestion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
>>>>>> maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as
>>> more CVEs
>>>>>> coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
>>>>>> In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes.
>> More
>>>>>> recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
>>> update
>>>>>> dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
>>> change?
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <idv@google.com.invalid
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and
>> support
>>>>>>> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
>>> them for
>>>>>>> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
>>> non-LTS
>>>>>>> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release).
>> This
>>>>>>> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
>>> provide
>>>>>>> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for
>>> new LTS
>>>>>>> release and upgrading to it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
>>> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
>>> vote
>>>>>>>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
>>>>>>>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x
>> easily
>>> if
>>>>>>>> they feel like upgrading at all,
>>>>>>>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there
>>> 3.1.x and
>>>>>>>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
>>>>>>>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
>>>>>>>> manage multiple release lines,
>>>>>>>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>> Rupert
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
>>>>>>>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to
>> the
>>> user
>>>>>>>>> mailing lists.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop
>> 2.9.
>>>>>>>>> Please share your thoughts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
>>>>>>>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
>>> weichiu@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
>>>>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the
>> word
>>> "end
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> life" but consider these facts:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
>>>>>>>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
>>> more
>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>> 15 months ago.
>>>>>>>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
>>> 2.9.3.
>>>>>>>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
>>> Hadoop
>>>>>>>>>> 2.10
>>>>>>>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
>>>>>>>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
>>> release
>>>>>>>>>> line,
>>>>>>>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in
>> Hadoop
>>>>>>>>>> 2.x, and
>>>>>>>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> --
>> John Zhuge
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mapreduce-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: mapreduce-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Mingliang Liu <li...@gmail.com>]

> are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to
backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.

The branch-2 is gone. I think you mean branch-2.10, Steve.

Many HBase users are still using Hadoop 2, so I hope Hadoop 2.10.x should
still be released at least every 12 months. If there is no volunteer for
2.10.1 RM, I can see how I can help.

Thanks,

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 8:55 AM John Zhuge <jz...@apache.org> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:01 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > -Ayush
> >
> > > On 27-Aug-2020, at 6:24 PM, Steve Loughran <stevel@cloudera.com.invalid
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need
> to
> > backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
> > >>
> > >> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
> > start
> > >> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
> > >>
> > >> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release
> lines
> > and
> > >> make more frequent releases in each line.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Weichiu
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > >> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> > release
> > >> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > >> > previous one.
> > >> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
> > Having a
> > >> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should
> > help with
> > >> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> > easier,
> > >> > which is currently a pain)
> > >> >
> > >> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
> > v.s.
> > >> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> > >> >
> > >> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > >> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as
> > more CVEs
> > >> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > >> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes.
> More
> > >> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> > update
> > >> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
> > change?
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <idv@google.com.invalid
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and
> support
> > >> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
> > them for
> > >> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
> > non-LTS
> > >> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release).
> This
> > >> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
> > provide
> > >> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for
> > new LTS
> > >> >> release and upgrading to it.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> > rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
> > vote
> > >> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> > >> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x
> easily
> > if
> > >> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> > >> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there
> > 3.1.x and
> > >> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> > >> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> > >> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> > >> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Cheers
> > >> >>> Rupert
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> > >> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to
> the
> > user
> > >> >>>> mailing lists.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop
> 2.9.
> > >> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> > >> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>> +1
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
> > weichiu@apache.org>
> > >> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> > >> >>>>> discussion
> > >> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the
> word
> > "end
> > >> >>>>> of
> > >> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> > >> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
> > more
> > >> >>>>> than
> > >> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> > >> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> > 2.9.3.
> > >> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
> > Hadoop
> > >> >>>>> 2.10
> > >> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> > >> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
> > release
> > >> >>>>> line,
> > >> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in
> Hadoop
> > >> >>>>> 2.x, and
> > >> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Thoughts?
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> >
>
>
> --
> John Zhuge
>


-- 
L

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Mingliang Liu <li...@gmail.com>]

> are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to
backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.

The branch-2 is gone. I think you mean branch-2.10, Steve.

Many HBase users are still using Hadoop 2, so I hope Hadoop 2.10.x should
still be released at least every 12 months. If there is no volunteer for
2.10.1 RM, I can see how I can help.

Thanks,

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 8:55 AM John Zhuge <jz...@apache.org> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:01 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > -Ayush
> >
> > > On 27-Aug-2020, at 6:24 PM, Steve Loughran <stevel@cloudera.com.invalid
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need
> to
> > backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
> > >>
> > >> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
> > start
> > >> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
> > >>
> > >> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release
> lines
> > and
> > >> make more frequent releases in each line.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Weichiu
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > >> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> > release
> > >> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > >> > previous one.
> > >> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
> > Having a
> > >> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should
> > help with
> > >> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> > easier,
> > >> > which is currently a pain)
> > >> >
> > >> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
> > v.s.
> > >> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> > >> >
> > >> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > >> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as
> > more CVEs
> > >> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > >> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes.
> More
> > >> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> > update
> > >> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
> > change?
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <idv@google.com.invalid
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and
> support
> > >> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
> > them for
> > >> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
> > non-LTS
> > >> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release).
> This
> > >> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
> > provide
> > >> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for
> > new LTS
> > >> >> release and upgrading to it.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> > rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
> > vote
> > >> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> > >> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x
> easily
> > if
> > >> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> > >> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there
> > 3.1.x and
> > >> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> > >> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> > >> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> > >> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Cheers
> > >> >>> Rupert
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> > >> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to
> the
> > user
> > >> >>>> mailing lists.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop
> 2.9.
> > >> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> > >> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>> +1
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
> > weichiu@apache.org>
> > >> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> > >> >>>>> discussion
> > >> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the
> word
> > "end
> > >> >>>>> of
> > >> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> > >> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
> > more
> > >> >>>>> than
> > >> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> > >> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> > 2.9.3.
> > >> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
> > Hadoop
> > >> >>>>> 2.10
> > >> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> > >> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
> > release
> > >> >>>>> line,
> > >> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in
> Hadoop
> > >> >>>>> 2.x, and
> > >> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Thoughts?
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> >
>
>
> --
> John Zhuge
>


-- 
L

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Mingliang Liu <li...@gmail.com>]

> are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to
backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.

The branch-2 is gone. I think you mean branch-2.10, Steve.

Many HBase users are still using Hadoop 2, so I hope Hadoop 2.10.x should
still be released at least every 12 months. If there is no volunteer for
2.10.1 RM, I can see how I can help.

Thanks,

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 8:55 AM John Zhuge <jz...@apache.org> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:01 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > -Ayush
> >
> > > On 27-Aug-2020, at 6:24 PM, Steve Loughran <stevel@cloudera.com.invalid
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need
> to
> > backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
> > >>
> > >> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
> > start
> > >> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
> > >>
> > >> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release
> lines
> > and
> > >> make more frequent releases in each line.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Weichiu
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > >> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> > release
> > >> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > >> > previous one.
> > >> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
> > Having a
> > >> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should
> > help with
> > >> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> > easier,
> > >> > which is currently a pain)
> > >> >
> > >> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
> > v.s.
> > >> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> > >> >
> > >> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > >> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as
> > more CVEs
> > >> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > >> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes.
> More
> > >> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> > update
> > >> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
> > change?
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <idv@google.com.invalid
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and
> support
> > >> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
> > them for
> > >> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
> > non-LTS
> > >> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release).
> This
> > >> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
> > provide
> > >> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for
> > new LTS
> > >> >> release and upgrading to it.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> > rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
> > vote
> > >> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> > >> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x
> easily
> > if
> > >> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> > >> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there
> > 3.1.x and
> > >> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> > >> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> > >> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> > >> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Cheers
> > >> >>> Rupert
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> > >> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to
> the
> > user
> > >> >>>> mailing lists.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop
> 2.9.
> > >> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> > >> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>> +1
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
> > weichiu@apache.org>
> > >> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> > >> >>>>> discussion
> > >> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the
> word
> > "end
> > >> >>>>> of
> > >> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> > >> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
> > more
> > >> >>>>> than
> > >> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> > >> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> > 2.9.3.
> > >> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
> > Hadoop
> > >> >>>>> 2.10
> > >> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> > >> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
> > release
> > >> >>>>> line,
> > >> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in
> Hadoop
> > >> >>>>> 2.x, and
> > >> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Thoughts?
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> >
>
>
> --
> John Zhuge
>


-- 
L

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Mingliang Liu <li...@gmail.com>]

> are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to
backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.

The branch-2 is gone. I think you mean branch-2.10, Steve.

Many HBase users are still using Hadoop 2, so I hope Hadoop 2.10.x should
still be released at least every 12 months. If there is no volunteer for
2.10.1 RM, I can see how I can help.

Thanks,

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 8:55 AM John Zhuge <jz...@apache.org> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:01 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > -Ayush
> >
> > > On 27-Aug-2020, at 6:24 PM, Steve Loughran <stevel@cloudera.com.invalid
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need
> to
> > backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
> > >>
> > >> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
> > start
> > >> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
> > >>
> > >> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release
> lines
> > and
> > >> make more frequent releases in each line.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Weichiu
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > >> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> > release
> > >> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > >> > previous one.
> > >> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
> > Having a
> > >> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should
> > help with
> > >> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> > easier,
> > >> > which is currently a pain)
> > >> >
> > >> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
> > v.s.
> > >> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> > >> >
> > >> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > >> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as
> > more CVEs
> > >> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > >> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes.
> More
> > >> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> > update
> > >> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
> > change?
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <idv@google.com.invalid
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and
> support
> > >> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
> > them for
> > >> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
> > non-LTS
> > >> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release).
> This
> > >> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
> > provide
> > >> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for
> > new LTS
> > >> >> release and upgrading to it.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> > rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
> > vote
> > >> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> > >> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x
> easily
> > if
> > >> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> > >> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there
> > 3.1.x and
> > >> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> > >> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> > >> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> > >> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Cheers
> > >> >>> Rupert
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> > >> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to
> the
> > user
> > >> >>>> mailing lists.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop
> 2.9.
> > >> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> > >> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>> +1
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
> > weichiu@apache.org>
> > >> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> > >> >>>>> discussion
> > >> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the
> word
> > "end
> > >> >>>>> of
> > >> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> > >> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
> > more
> > >> >>>>> than
> > >> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> > >> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> > 2.9.3.
> > >> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
> > Hadoop
> > >> >>>>> 2.10
> > >> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> > >> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
> > release
> > >> >>>>> line,
> > >> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in
> Hadoop
> > >> >>>>> 2.x, and
> > >> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Thoughts?
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> >
>
>
> --
> John Zhuge
>


-- 
L

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Mingliang Liu <li...@gmail.com>]

> are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to
backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.

The branch-2 is gone. I think you mean branch-2.10, Steve.

Many HBase users are still using Hadoop 2, so I hope Hadoop 2.10.x should
still be released at least every 12 months. If there is no volunteer for
2.10.1 RM, I can see how I can help.

Thanks,

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 8:55 AM John Zhuge <jz...@apache.org> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:01 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > -Ayush
> >
> > > On 27-Aug-2020, at 6:24 PM, Steve Loughran <stevel@cloudera.com.invalid
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need
> to
> > backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
> > >>
> > >> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
> > start
> > >> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
> > >>
> > >> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release
> lines
> > and
> > >> make more frequent releases in each line.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Weichiu
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > >> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> > release
> > >> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > >> > previous one.
> > >> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
> > Having a
> > >> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should
> > help with
> > >> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> > easier,
> > >> > which is currently a pain)
> > >> >
> > >> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
> > v.s.
> > >> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> > >> >
> > >> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > >> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as
> > more CVEs
> > >> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > >> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes.
> More
> > >> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> > update
> > >> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
> > change?
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <idv@google.com.invalid
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and
> support
> > >> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
> > them for
> > >> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
> > non-LTS
> > >> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release).
> This
> > >> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
> > provide
> > >> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for
> > new LTS
> > >> >> release and upgrading to it.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> > rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
> > vote
> > >> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> > >> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x
> easily
> > if
> > >> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> > >> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there
> > 3.1.x and
> > >> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> > >> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> > >> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> > >> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Cheers
> > >> >>> Rupert
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> > >> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to
> the
> > user
> > >> >>>> mailing lists.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop
> 2.9.
> > >> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> > >> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>> +1
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
> > weichiu@apache.org>
> > >> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> > >> >>>>> discussion
> > >> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the
> word
> > "end
> > >> >>>>> of
> > >> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> > >> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
> > more
> > >> >>>>> than
> > >> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> > >> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> > 2.9.3.
> > >> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
> > Hadoop
> > >> >>>>> 2.10
> > >> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> > >> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
> > release
> > >> >>>>> line,
> > >> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in
> Hadoop
> > >> >>>>> 2.x, and
> > >> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Thoughts?
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> >
>
>
> --
> John Zhuge
>


-- 
L

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[John Zhuge <jz...@apache.org>]

+1

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:01 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> -Ayush
>
> > On 27-Aug-2020, at 6:24 PM, Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> >
> > +1
> >
> > are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to
> backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
> >>
> >> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
> start
> >> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
> >>
> >> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines
> and
> >> make more frequent releases in each line.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Weichiu
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> >> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> release
> >> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> >> > previous one.
> >> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
> Having a
> >> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should
> help with
> >> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> easier,
> >> > which is currently a pain)
> >> >
> >> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
> v.s.
> >> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> >> >
> >> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> >> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as
> more CVEs
> >> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> >> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> >> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> update
> >> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
> change?
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> >> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
> them for
> >> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
> non-LTS
> >> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> >> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
> provide
> >> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for
> new LTS
> >> >> release and upgrading to it.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
> vote
> >> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> >> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily
> if
> >> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> >> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there
> 3.1.x and
> >> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> >> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> >> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> >> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Cheers
> >> >>> Rupert
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> >> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> user
> >> >>>> mailing lists.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> >> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> >> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> +1
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
> weichiu@apache.org>
> >> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> >> >>>>> discussion
> >> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> "end
> >> >>>>> of
> >> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> >> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
> more
> >> >>>>> than
> >> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> >> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> 2.9.3.
> >> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
> Hadoop
> >> >>>>> 2.10
> >> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> >> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
> release
> >> >>>>> line,
> >> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> >> >>>>> 2.x, and
> >> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
>


-- 
John Zhuge

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[John Zhuge <jz...@apache.org>]

+1

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:01 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> -Ayush
>
> > On 27-Aug-2020, at 6:24 PM, Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> >
> > +1
> >
> > are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to
> backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
> >>
> >> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
> start
> >> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
> >>
> >> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines
> and
> >> make more frequent releases in each line.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Weichiu
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> >> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> release
> >> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> >> > previous one.
> >> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
> Having a
> >> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should
> help with
> >> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> easier,
> >> > which is currently a pain)
> >> >
> >> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
> v.s.
> >> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> >> >
> >> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> >> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as
> more CVEs
> >> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> >> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> >> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> update
> >> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
> change?
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> >> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
> them for
> >> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
> non-LTS
> >> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> >> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
> provide
> >> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for
> new LTS
> >> >> release and upgrading to it.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
> vote
> >> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> >> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily
> if
> >> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> >> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there
> 3.1.x and
> >> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> >> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> >> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> >> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Cheers
> >> >>> Rupert
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> >> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> user
> >> >>>> mailing lists.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> >> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> >> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> +1
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
> weichiu@apache.org>
> >> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> >> >>>>> discussion
> >> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> "end
> >> >>>>> of
> >> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> >> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
> more
> >> >>>>> than
> >> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> >> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> 2.9.3.
> >> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
> Hadoop
> >> >>>>> 2.10
> >> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> >> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
> release
> >> >>>>> line,
> >> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> >> >>>>> 2.x, and
> >> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
>


-- 
John Zhuge

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[John Zhuge <jz...@apache.org>]

+1

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:01 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> -Ayush
>
> > On 27-Aug-2020, at 6:24 PM, Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> >
> > +1
> >
> > are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to
> backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
> >>
> >> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
> start
> >> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
> >>
> >> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines
> and
> >> make more frequent releases in each line.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Weichiu
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> >> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> release
> >> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> >> > previous one.
> >> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
> Having a
> >> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should
> help with
> >> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> easier,
> >> > which is currently a pain)
> >> >
> >> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
> v.s.
> >> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> >> >
> >> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> >> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as
> more CVEs
> >> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> >> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> >> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> update
> >> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
> change?
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> >> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
> them for
> >> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
> non-LTS
> >> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> >> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
> provide
> >> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for
> new LTS
> >> >> release and upgrading to it.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
> vote
> >> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> >> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily
> if
> >> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> >> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there
> 3.1.x and
> >> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> >> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> >> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> >> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Cheers
> >> >>> Rupert
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> >> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> user
> >> >>>> mailing lists.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> >> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> >> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> +1
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
> weichiu@apache.org>
> >> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> >> >>>>> discussion
> >> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> "end
> >> >>>>> of
> >> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> >> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
> more
> >> >>>>> than
> >> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> >> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> 2.9.3.
> >> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
> Hadoop
> >> >>>>> 2.10
> >> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> >> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
> release
> >> >>>>> line,
> >> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> >> >>>>> 2.x, and
> >> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
>


-- 
John Zhuge

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[John Zhuge <jz...@apache.org>]

+1

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:01 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> -Ayush
>
> > On 27-Aug-2020, at 6:24 PM, Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> >
> > +1
> >
> > are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to
> backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
> >>
> >> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
> start
> >> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
> >>
> >> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines
> and
> >> make more frequent releases in each line.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Weichiu
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> >> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> release
> >> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> >> > previous one.
> >> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
> Having a
> >> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should
> help with
> >> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> easier,
> >> > which is currently a pain)
> >> >
> >> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
> v.s.
> >> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> >> >
> >> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> >> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as
> more CVEs
> >> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> >> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> >> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> update
> >> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
> change?
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> >> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
> them for
> >> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
> non-LTS
> >> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> >> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
> provide
> >> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for
> new LTS
> >> >> release and upgrading to it.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
> vote
> >> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> >> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily
> if
> >> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> >> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there
> 3.1.x and
> >> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> >> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> >> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> >> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Cheers
> >> >>> Rupert
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> >> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> user
> >> >>>> mailing lists.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> >> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> >> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> +1
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
> weichiu@apache.org>
> >> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> >> >>>>> discussion
> >> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> "end
> >> >>>>> of
> >> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> >> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
> more
> >> >>>>> than
> >> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> >> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> 2.9.3.
> >> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
> Hadoop
> >> >>>>> 2.10
> >> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> >> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
> release
> >> >>>>> line,
> >> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> >> >>>>> 2.x, and
> >> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
>


-- 
John Zhuge

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[John Zhuge <jz...@apache.org>]

+1

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:01 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> -Ayush
>
> > On 27-Aug-2020, at 6:24 PM, Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> >
> > +1
> >
> > are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to
> backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
> >>
> >> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to
> start
> >> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
> >>
> >> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines
> and
> >> make more frequent releases in each line.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Weichiu
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> >> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> release
> >> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> >> > previous one.
> >> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow.
> Having a
> >> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should
> help with
> >> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> easier,
> >> > which is currently a pain)
> >> >
> >> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS
> v.s.
> >> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> >> >
> >> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> >> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as
> more CVEs
> >> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> >> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> >> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> update
> >> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this
> change?
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> >> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support
> them for
> >> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other
> non-LTS
> >> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> >> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and
> provide
> >> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for
> new LTS
> >> >> release and upgrading to it.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I
> vote
> >> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> >> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily
> if
> >> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> >> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there
> 3.1.x and
> >> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> >> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> >> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> >> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Cheers
> >> >>> Rupert
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> >> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> user
> >> >>>> mailing lists.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> >> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> >> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> +1
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<
> weichiu@apache.org>
> >> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> >> >>>>> discussion
> >> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> "end
> >> >>>>> of
> >> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> >> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is
> more
> >> >>>>> than
> >> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> >> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> 2.9.3.
> >> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using
> Hadoop
> >> >>>>> 2.10
> >> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> >> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple
> release
> >> >>>>> line,
> >> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> >> >>>>> 2.x, and
> >> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
>


-- 
John Zhuge

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com>]

+1

-Ayush

> On 27-Aug-2020, at 6:24 PM, Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>> 
>> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to start
>> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>> 
>> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines and
>> make more frequent releases in each line.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Weichiu
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > I think that's a great suggestion.
>> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor release
>> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
>> > previous one.
>> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having a
>> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help with
>> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much easier,
>> > which is currently a pain)
>> >
>> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
>> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
>> >
>> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
>> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more CVEs
>> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
>> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
>> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to update
>> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
>> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them for
>> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other non-LTS
>> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
>> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
>> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new LTS
>> >> release and upgrading to it.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <ru...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I vote
>> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
>> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily if
>> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
>> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
>> >>>
>> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x and
>> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
>> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
>> >>> manage multiple release lines,
>> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers
>> >>> Rupert
>> >>>
>> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
>> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the user
>> >>>> mailing lists.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
>> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
>> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> +1
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<we...@apache.org>
>> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
>> >>>>> discussion
>> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word "end
>> >>>>> of
>> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
>> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is more
>> >>>>> than
>> >>>>> 15 months ago.
>> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for 2.9.3.
>> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using Hadoop
>> >>>>> 2.10
>> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
>> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple release
>> >>>>> line,
>> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
>> >>>>> 2.x, and
>> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thoughts?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com>]

+1

-Ayush

> On 27-Aug-2020, at 6:24 PM, Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>> 
>> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to start
>> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>> 
>> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines and
>> make more frequent releases in each line.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Weichiu
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > I think that's a great suggestion.
>> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor release
>> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
>> > previous one.
>> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having a
>> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help with
>> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much easier,
>> > which is currently a pain)
>> >
>> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
>> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
>> >
>> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
>> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more CVEs
>> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
>> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
>> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to update
>> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
>> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them for
>> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other non-LTS
>> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
>> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
>> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new LTS
>> >> release and upgrading to it.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <ru...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I vote
>> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
>> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily if
>> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
>> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
>> >>>
>> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x and
>> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
>> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
>> >>> manage multiple release lines,
>> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers
>> >>> Rupert
>> >>>
>> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
>> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the user
>> >>>> mailing lists.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
>> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
>> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> +1
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<we...@apache.org>
>> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
>> >>>>> discussion
>> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word "end
>> >>>>> of
>> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
>> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is more
>> >>>>> than
>> >>>>> 15 months ago.
>> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for 2.9.3.
>> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using Hadoop
>> >>>>> 2.10
>> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
>> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple release
>> >>>>> line,
>> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
>> >>>>> 2.x, and
>> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thoughts?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com>]

+1

-Ayush

> On 27-Aug-2020, at 6:24 PM, Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>> 
>> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to start
>> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>> 
>> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines and
>> make more frequent releases in each line.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Weichiu
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > I think that's a great suggestion.
>> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor release
>> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
>> > previous one.
>> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having a
>> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help with
>> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much easier,
>> > which is currently a pain)
>> >
>> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
>> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
>> >
>> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
>> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more CVEs
>> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
>> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
>> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to update
>> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
>> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them for
>> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other non-LTS
>> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
>> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
>> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new LTS
>> >> release and upgrading to it.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <ru...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I vote
>> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
>> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily if
>> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
>> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
>> >>>
>> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x and
>> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
>> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
>> >>> manage multiple release lines,
>> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers
>> >>> Rupert
>> >>>
>> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
>> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the user
>> >>>> mailing lists.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
>> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
>> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> +1
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<we...@apache.org>
>> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
>> >>>>> discussion
>> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word "end
>> >>>>> of
>> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
>> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is more
>> >>>>> than
>> >>>>> 15 months ago.
>> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for 2.9.3.
>> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using Hadoop
>> >>>>> 2.10
>> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
>> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple release
>> >>>>> line,
>> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
>> >>>>> 2.x, and
>> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thoughts?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com>]

+1

-Ayush

> On 27-Aug-2020, at 6:24 PM, Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>> 
>> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to start
>> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>> 
>> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines and
>> make more frequent releases in each line.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Weichiu
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > I think that's a great suggestion.
>> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor release
>> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
>> > previous one.
>> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having a
>> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help with
>> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much easier,
>> > which is currently a pain)
>> >
>> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
>> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
>> >
>> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
>> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more CVEs
>> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
>> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
>> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to update
>> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
>> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them for
>> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other non-LTS
>> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
>> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
>> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new LTS
>> >> release and upgrading to it.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <ru...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I vote
>> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
>> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily if
>> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
>> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
>> >>>
>> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x and
>> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
>> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
>> >>> manage multiple release lines,
>> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers
>> >>> Rupert
>> >>>
>> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
>> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the user
>> >>>> mailing lists.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
>> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
>> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> +1
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<we...@apache.org>
>> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
>> >>>>> discussion
>> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word "end
>> >>>>> of
>> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
>> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is more
>> >>>>> than
>> >>>>> 15 months ago.
>> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for 2.9.3.
>> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using Hadoop
>> >>>>> 2.10
>> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
>> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple release
>> >>>>> line,
>> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
>> >>>>> 2.x, and
>> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thoughts?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com>]

+1

-Ayush

> On 27-Aug-2020, at 6:24 PM, Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>> 
>> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to start
>> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>> 
>> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines and
>> make more frequent releases in each line.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Weichiu
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > I think that's a great suggestion.
>> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor release
>> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
>> > previous one.
>> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having a
>> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help with
>> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much easier,
>> > which is currently a pain)
>> >
>> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
>> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
>> >
>> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
>> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more CVEs
>> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
>> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
>> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to update
>> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
>> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them for
>> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other non-LTS
>> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
>> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
>> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new LTS
>> >> release and upgrading to it.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <ru...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I vote
>> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
>> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily if
>> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
>> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
>> >>>
>> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x and
>> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
>> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
>> >>> manage multiple release lines,
>> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers
>> >>> Rupert
>> >>>
>> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
>> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the user
>> >>>> mailing lists.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
>> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
>> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> +1
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<we...@apache.org>
>> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
>> >>>>> discussion
>> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word "end
>> >>>>> of
>> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
>> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is more
>> >>>>> than
>> >>>>> 15 months ago.
>> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for 2.9.3.
>> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using Hadoop
>> >>>>> 2.10
>> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
>> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple release
>> >>>>> line,
>> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
>> >>>>> 2.x, and
>> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thoughts?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.INVALID>]

+1

are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to
backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.


On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:

> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>
> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to start
> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>
> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines and
> make more frequent releases in each line.
>
> Thanks,
> Weichiu
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> release
> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > previous one.
> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having a
> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
> with
> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> easier,
> > which is currently a pain)
> >
> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> >
> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
> CVEs
> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> update
> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them
> for
> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other non-LTS
> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
> LTS
> >> release and upgrading to it.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I vote
> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily if
> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> >>>
> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
> and
> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Rupert
> >>>
> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> >>>
> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> user
> >>>> mailing lists.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<weichiu@apache.org
> >
> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> >>>>> discussion
> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> "end
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is more
> >>>>> than
> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> 2.9.3.
> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.10
> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple release
> >>>>> line,
> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.x, and
> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Mingliang Liu <li...@gmail.com>]

+1 for putting 2.9 lines to EOL.

Let's focus on 2.10 releases for Hadoop 2. Also is there any plan for
2.10.1? It has been 11 months since 2.10 first release.

Thanks,

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:57 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:

> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>
> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to start
> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>
> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines and
> make more frequent releases in each line.
>
> Thanks,
> Weichiu
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> release
> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > previous one.
> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having a
> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
> with
> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> easier,
> > which is currently a pain)
> >
> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> >
> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
> CVEs
> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> update
> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them
> for
> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other non-LTS
> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
> LTS
> >> release and upgrading to it.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I vote
> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily if
> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> >>>
> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
> and
> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Rupert
> >>>
> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> >>>
> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> user
> >>>> mailing lists.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<weichiu@apache.org
> >
> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> >>>>> discussion
> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> "end
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is more
> >>>>> than
> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> 2.9.3.
> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.10
> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple release
> >>>>> line,
> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.x, and
> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
>


-- 
L

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Mingliang Liu <li...@gmail.com>]

+1 for putting 2.9 lines to EOL.

Let's focus on 2.10 releases for Hadoop 2. Also is there any plan for
2.10.1? It has been 11 months since 2.10 first release.

Thanks,

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:57 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:

> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>
> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to start
> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>
> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines and
> make more frequent releases in each line.
>
> Thanks,
> Weichiu
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> release
> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > previous one.
> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having a
> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
> with
> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> easier,
> > which is currently a pain)
> >
> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> >
> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
> CVEs
> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> update
> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them
> for
> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other non-LTS
> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
> LTS
> >> release and upgrading to it.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I vote
> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily if
> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> >>>
> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
> and
> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Rupert
> >>>
> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> >>>
> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> user
> >>>> mailing lists.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<weichiu@apache.org
> >
> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> >>>>> discussion
> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> "end
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is more
> >>>>> than
> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> 2.9.3.
> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.10
> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple release
> >>>>> line,
> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.x, and
> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
>


-- 
L

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.INVALID>]

+1

are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to
backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.


On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:

> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>
> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to start
> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>
> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines and
> make more frequent releases in each line.
>
> Thanks,
> Weichiu
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> release
> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > previous one.
> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having a
> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
> with
> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> easier,
> > which is currently a pain)
> >
> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> >
> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
> CVEs
> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> update
> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them
> for
> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other non-LTS
> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
> LTS
> >> release and upgrading to it.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I vote
> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily if
> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> >>>
> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
> and
> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Rupert
> >>>
> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> >>>
> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> user
> >>>> mailing lists.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<weichiu@apache.org
> >
> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> >>>>> discussion
> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> "end
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is more
> >>>>> than
> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> 2.9.3.
> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.10
> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple release
> >>>>> line,
> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.x, and
> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.INVALID>]

+1

are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to
backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.


On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:

> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>
> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to start
> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>
> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines and
> make more frequent releases in each line.
>
> Thanks,
> Weichiu
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> release
> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > previous one.
> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having a
> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
> with
> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> easier,
> > which is currently a pain)
> >
> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> >
> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
> CVEs
> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> update
> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them
> for
> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other non-LTS
> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
> LTS
> >> release and upgrading to it.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I vote
> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily if
> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> >>>
> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
> and
> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Rupert
> >>>
> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> >>>
> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> user
> >>>> mailing lists.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<weichiu@apache.org
> >
> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> >>>>> discussion
> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> "end
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is more
> >>>>> than
> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> 2.9.3.
> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.10
> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple release
> >>>>> line,
> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.x, and
> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Mingliang Liu <li...@gmail.com>]

+1 for putting 2.9 lines to EOL.

Let's focus on 2.10 releases for Hadoop 2. Also is there any plan for
2.10.1? It has been 11 months since 2.10 first release.

Thanks,

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:57 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:

> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>
> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to start
> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>
> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines and
> make more frequent releases in each line.
>
> Thanks,
> Weichiu
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> release
> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > previous one.
> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having a
> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
> with
> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> easier,
> > which is currently a pain)
> >
> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> >
> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
> CVEs
> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> update
> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them
> for
> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other non-LTS
> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
> LTS
> >> release and upgrading to it.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I vote
> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily if
> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> >>>
> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
> and
> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Rupert
> >>>
> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> >>>
> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> user
> >>>> mailing lists.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<weichiu@apache.org
> >
> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> >>>>> discussion
> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> "end
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is more
> >>>>> than
> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> 2.9.3.
> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.10
> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple release
> >>>>> line,
> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.x, and
> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
>


-- 
L

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.INVALID>]

+1

are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to
backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.


On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:

> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>
> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to start
> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>
> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines and
> make more frequent releases in each line.
>
> Thanks,
> Weichiu
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> release
> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > previous one.
> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having a
> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
> with
> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> easier,
> > which is currently a pain)
> >
> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> >
> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
> CVEs
> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> update
> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them
> for
> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other non-LTS
> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
> LTS
> >> release and upgrading to it.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I vote
> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily if
> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> >>>
> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
> and
> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Rupert
> >>>
> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> >>>
> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> user
> >>>> mailing lists.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<weichiu@apache.org
> >
> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> >>>>> discussion
> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> "end
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is more
> >>>>> than
> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> 2.9.3.
> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.10
> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple release
> >>>>> line,
> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.x, and
> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Mingliang Liu <li...@gmail.com>]

+1 for putting 2.9 lines to EOL.

Let's focus on 2.10 releases for Hadoop 2. Also is there any plan for
2.10.1? It has been 11 months since 2.10 first release.

Thanks,

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:57 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:

> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>
> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to start
> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>
> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines and
> make more frequent releases in each line.
>
> Thanks,
> Weichiu
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> release
> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > previous one.
> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having a
> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
> with
> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> easier,
> > which is currently a pain)
> >
> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> >
> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
> CVEs
> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> update
> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them
> for
> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other non-LTS
> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
> LTS
> >> release and upgrading to it.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I vote
> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily if
> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> >>>
> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
> and
> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Rupert
> >>>
> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> >>>
> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> user
> >>>> mailing lists.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<weichiu@apache.org
> >
> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> >>>>> discussion
> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> "end
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is more
> >>>>> than
> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> 2.9.3.
> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.10
> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple release
> >>>>> line,
> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.x, and
> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
>


-- 
L

Re: [DISCUSS] fate of branch-2.9

[Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.INVALID>]

+1

are there any Hadoop branch-2 releases planned, ever? If so I'll need to
backport my s3a directory compatibility patch to whatever is still live.


On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:55, Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:

> Bump up this thread after 6 months.
>
> Is anyone still interested in the 2.9 release line? Or are we good to start
> the EOL process? The 2.9.2 was released in Nov 2018.
>
> I'd really like to see the community to converge to fewer release lines and
> make more frequent releases in each line.
>
> Thanks,
> Weichiu
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I think that's a great suggestion.
> > Currently, we make 1 minor release per year, and within each minor
> release
> > we bring up 1 thousand to 2 thousand commits in it compared with the
> > previous one.
> > I can totally understand it is a big bite for users to swallow. Having a
> > more frequent release cycle, plus LTS and non-LTS releases should help
> with
> > this. (Of course we will need to make the release preparation much
> easier,
> > which is currently a pain)
> >
> > I am happy to discuss the release model further in the dev ML. LTS v.s.
> > non-LTS is one suggestion.
> >
> > Another similar issue: In the past Hadoop strived to
> > maintain compatibility. However, this is no longer sustainable as more
> CVEs
> > coming from our dependencies: netty, jetty, jackson ... etc.
> > In many cases, updating the dependencies brings breaking changes. More
> > recently, especially in Hadoop 3.x, I started to make the effort to
> update
> > dependencies much more frequently. How do users feel about this change?
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Igor Dvorzhak <id...@google.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe Hadoop will benefit from adopting a similar release and support
> >> strategy as Java? I.e. designate some releases as LTS and support them
> for
> >> 2 (?) years (it seems that 2.7.x branch was de-facto LTS), other non-LTS
> >> releases will be supported for 6 months (or until next release). This
> >> should allow to reduce maintenance cost of non-LTS release and provide
> >> conservative users desired stability by allowing them to wait for new
> LTS
> >> release and upgrading to it.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Rupert Mazzucco <
> rupert.mazzucco@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> After recently jumping from 2.7.7 to 2.10 without issue myself, I vote
> >>> for keeping only the 2.10 line.
> >>> It would seem all other 2.x branches can upgrade to a 2.10.x easily if
> >>> they feel like upgrading at all,
> >>> unlike a jump to 3.x, which may require more planning.
> >>>
> >>> I also vote for having only one main 3.x branch. Why are there 3.1.x
> and
> >>> 3.2.x seemingly competing,
> >>> and now 3.3.x? For a community that does not have the resources to
> >>> manage multiple release lines,
> >>> you guys sure like to multiply release lines a lot.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Rupert
> >>>
> >>> Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Wei-Chiu Chuang
> >>> <we...@cloudera.com.invalid>:
> >>>
> >>>> Forwarding the discussion thread from the dev mailing lists to the
> user
> >>>> mailing lists.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to get an idea of how many users are still on Hadoop 2.9.
> >>>> Please share your thoughts.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:30 PM Sree Vaddi
> >>>> <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:12 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang<weichiu@apache.org
> >
> >>>>> wrote:   Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Following the discussion to end branch-2.8, I want to start a
> >>>>> discussion
> >>>>> around what's next with branch-2.9. I am hesitant to use the word
> "end
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> life" but consider these facts:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * 2.9.0 was released Dec 17, 2017.
> >>>>> * 2.9.2, the last 2.9.x release, went out Nov 19 2018, which is more
> >>>>> than
> >>>>> 15 months ago.
> >>>>> * no one seems to be interested in being the release manager for
> 2.9.3.
> >>>>> * Most if not all of the active Hadoop contributors are using Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.10
> >>>>> or Hadoop 3.x.
> >>>>> * We as a community do not have the cycle to manage multiple release
> >>>>> line,
> >>>>> especially since Hadoop 3.3.0 is coming out soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is perhaps the time to gradually reduce our footprint in Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.x, and
> >>>>> encourage people to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
>