Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop, mail # general - [DISCUSS] HBase as TLP


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] HBase as TLP
Stack 2010-04-12, 15:42
Its been a while since there's been a peep out of this thread so I'll
now move this topic to a vote.

Thanks to all who contributed to the discussion.
St.Ack

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Jay Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alright, I totally agree.  Thanks for putting it that way.
>
> -Jay
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Imran M Yousuf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> I feel the same. From following HBase seeing its releases depending
>> directly on Hadoop release gets me thinking...
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Imran
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Tom White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Eclipse does big bang releases of multiple components, but I believe
>> > it requires a huge amount of coordination and planning. Instead, I
>> > think the direction Hadoop should move in is to stabilize and clearly
>> > demarcate its core filesystem and MapReduce interfaces, so that
>> > projects like HBase, Pig, and Hive can run against multiple versions
>> > of core. Their release cycles are already largely decoupled from core,
>> > so the question about whether they become TLPs is more to do with
>> > project governance than with release coordination.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Tom
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Jay Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Not sure exactly what I meant by "1.0 of what", "Hadoop" I guess, I was
>> >> trying to address the concerns raised, which I share -- Alan's concern
>> is
>> >> that if the projects are completely separate from each other, that might
>> >> decrease visibility as to the demands they're placing on each other when
>> >> integrated, and St.Ack mentioned the frankenstein factor which I think
>> we've
>> >> all felt some pain from, and which may get worse after the project
>> split.
>> >> What's the standard way to deploy the three, even?  Is there one?
>> >>
>> >> If the PMCs jointly maintained some sort of 'stable integrated build'
>> which
>> >> took in new releases from the TLPs as they were released after a soak
>> >> period, it could provide a common touchstone that bugs could be tested
>> >> against and cross-component patches delivered against, potentially
>> >> increasing visibility of cross-component issues while providing a less
>> >> cobbled-together system to administrate.  On the other side, though, if
>> >> executed wrong, you'd be creating a committee of committees and possibly
>> >> undoing some of the benefits of going TLP in the first place, especially
>> if
>> >> politics heat up over what goes into the 'standard' build.  I think it
>> could
>> >> be viable though.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Apr 8, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Jay Booth wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>  What if the projects were:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> A)  split out to TLPs because they do seem to have reached that level
>> of
>> >>>> individual community
>> >>>>
>> >>>> but,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> B)  The projects could somehow jointly put out an integrated build
>> >>>> containing the above projects and let users run whatever they want out
>> of
>> >>>> it?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That would require a lot of coordination but would make a heck of a
>> 1.0
>> >>>> release,
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 1.0 release of what?
>> >>>
>> >>> Arun
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Imran M Yousuf
>> Entrepreneur & Software Engineer
>> Smart IT Engineering
>> Dhaka, Bangladesh
>> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Blog: http://imyousuf-tech.blogs.smartitengineering.com/
>> Mobile: +880-1711402557
>>
>