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

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop >> mail # general >> DISCUSSION: Cut a hadoop-0.20.0-append release from the tip of branch-0.20-append branch?


Copy link to this message
-
Re: DISCUSSION: Cut a hadoop-0.20.0-append release from the tip of branch-0.20-append branch?
I'm on the HBase PMC.

> We will end up with Apache+Security release vs
> Apache+Append release vs Apache+Avatar release,

The current situation is pretty close to this.

HBase has no suitable binary ASF Hadoop release to work against, currently. Vanilla version 0.20 does not have sync/append support. We recommend users adopt Cloudera's CDH3 beta 2, or compile the 0.20-append branch from source. Version 0.21 is marked as unstable, was not tested at scale by Yahoo (unlike 0.20), and has been panned by many would be adopters, if the various tweets and blog posts I have seen in that regard are any indication.

> Thats why I think we should go to 0.22 ASAP and get
> companies to build their new features on trunk against
> that.

If Hadoop 0.22 is not vetted at high scale as was 0.20 -- this is the current situation with 0.21 -- then I fear the current situation will not change and HBase will still to refer would be users to a non-ASF release or a source-only branch.

Best regards,

    - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back.
  - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
--- On Wed, 12/22/10, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: Cut a hadoop-0.20.0-append release from the tip of branch-0.20-append branch?
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Wednesday, December 22, 2010, 5:03 PM
>
> On Dec 23, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Stack wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> There are already 5 Hadoop 20.x releases out
> there, I don't think there is a need for another. (personal
> opinion, not a veto or speaking as the chair)
> >>
> >
> > Are you counting other than Apache releases?  (I
> see only 4 here, two
> > of which probably should be removed:
> > http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/apache//hadoop/core/.)
>
>
> yes.. I was referring to the external companies who have
> decided to release their own version, for their own business
> purposes. (please don't take that as a negative).
>
> >
> >> Is there a reason why we couldn't create a hadoop
> 0.20.3 release that has this patch inside of it, as well as
> other fixes that have been applied since 0.20.2 (~26
> patches)? Would this be too much effort for you to RM?..
> >>
> >
> > I'd like that but my sense is the general populace of
> hadoopers would
> > think the append/sync suite of patches destabilizing
> -- append/sync
> > has a long 'history' in hadoop -- and a violation of
> the general
> > principal that bug fixes only are added on a branch.
>
> I'm open with adding it, as lack of append/sync could be
> seen as a bug to some. (yes i'm playing with words)
> >
> >
> >> I really don't want to come to a^h^h^h^hget out of
> the situation where we have multiple releases of 0.20 each
> with a unique feature.
> >>
> >
> > Sure.  The notion has been broached before up on
> these lists -- e.g.
> > there was talk of a 0.20 Apache release that had
> security in it -- and
> > at the time folks seemed amenable.
>
> I think that approach encourages groups of
> individuals/companies to huddle up together to build large
> features without taking the larger group into account and
> then 'drop' the feature off and wait for others to thank
> them & port it to their releases. We then become
> multiple communities instead of a single one.
>
> We will end up with Apache+Security release vs
> Apache+Append release vs Apache+Avatar release, with various
> bug-fixes sprinkled into each.
> And I'm not sure which release Pig or Hbase would target to
> develop against.
>
> Thats why I think we should go to 0.22 ASAP and get
> companies to build their new features on trunk against
> that.
>
> >
> > Thanks for getting the discussion off the ground,
> > St.Ack
>
>