Ted Yu 2011-11-01, 18:16
Roman Shaposhnik 2011-11-01, 18:32
Ted Yu 2011-11-01, 19:03
Andrew Purtell 2011-11-01, 19:39
Roman Shaposhnik 2011-11-01, 19:51
Andrew Purtell 2011-11-01, 20:00
Roman Shaposhnik 2011-11-01, 21:16
Andrew Purtell 2011-11-01, 21:57
Todd Lipcon 2011-11-01, 22:00
Roman Shaposhnik 2011-11-01, 22:17
-Re: proper pace for JIRA integration
Konstantin Boudnik 2011-11-01, 23:49
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 02:57PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > Personally, I think it is extremely unfair to refer to .22 as
> > DoA/ignored. Unless,═of course, such statement can be backed up with facts.
> Yeah, DoA is harsh, when I meant more like "abandoned at release". Similar to 0.21.
> Well that is my question, really. Is it?
> We've heard that CDH4 is going to be start from something a lot closer to
> 0.23 than 0.22, that Hortonworks is committed to 0.23. It seems 0.23 is the
> future, and a RC may be happening as early as the end of this year, i.e. in
> the next month or so.
Hadoop contributions are coming from many places, so I don't see why this is
so important to know how close a particular distro will be to this a that ASF
release. Just the other day we had this long thread about contributions on
Hadoop general@ - it might be interesting to re-read it.
> Given recent history and the above described═commitments, I think there is
> confusion about where/if 0.22 fits in. People will work on what inspires
> them, but it seems the center of gravity has already moved beyond 0.22. Is
> that a fair statement?
Perhaps I am missing the point of this discussion, but according to Hadoop
bylaws (available to anyone from https://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html):
When a release of one of the project's products is ready, a vote is required
to accept the release as an official release of the project.
Lazy Majority of active PMC members
What anything in this thread has to do with the quote above? Hadoop is
released when it is ready and a release is official by the lazy majority.
If downstream projects decide not to participate in support a release - well,
this is sad, but this happens. And this means that a particular release will
have a somewhat smaller stack available to our users.
Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any company the author might be
affiliated with at the moment of writing.
> > The facts that I have are such that there will be a reasonably large
> > deployment of═Hadoop 0.22 and HBase at EBay makes me believe that such
> > a combination═should be of interest to HBase community.
> Then I'm sure the eBay guys will have that interest. :-)
> Best regards,
> ═ - Andy
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Roman Shaposhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Konstantin Shvachko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: Konstantin Boudnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 2:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: proper pace for JIRA integration
> > On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>> ═There will be some deployment of .22 in big shops as far as I know.
> >> Who are these "big shops"?
> > EBay is a good example here I'm CCing Konstantin if you want to find
> > out more details.
> >> AFAIK, compared to 0.20.x or 0.23, 0.22 has a number of regressions.
> > I'm NOT sure I agree as far as 0.23 goes. The state of 0.23 is an
> > early alpha. There's
> > lots of work that still need to go into it before it graduates from an
> > alpha stage. As such
> > it is premature to talk about its quality. Now, the question of how
> > long it takes .23
> > to get to the same point of HDFS stability that .22 has -- is an open
> > one. And I'd
> > rather hear what Konstantin has to say about it.
> >> We need to assess how healthy 0.22 is.
> > It is pretty healthy.═ If anybody is looking for a stable and up-to-date
> > HDFS feature set -- it is the one I'd recommend taking a look at. It is
> > assumed that MR is slower in .22 compared to 20.205, but frankly,
> > I haven't seen the numbers yet, so I can't speculate.
Konstantin Shvachko 2011-11-02, 07:34
Andrew Purtell 2011-11-02, 16:18
Andrew Purtell 2011-11-02, 16:12