Hi guys,

We had a lively discussion last week regarding what version number to assign to the major release following Pig 0.9. The discussion can be seen here: http://tinyurl.com/4ng8upa.

Based on the discussion, it seemed that most people were on-board with making next release Pig 1.0 as long as we have done good job stabilizing post Pig 0.9.

I would like to call vote on calling the release Pig 1.0. I believe it is important to finalize the version number prior to starting the work on the release. I believe that this vote is part of Product Release Action and as such is subject to Lazy Majority vote: http://pig.apache.org/bylaws.html.

Please, complete the vote by the end of this Thursday, 3/10. Please, note that anybody is welcome to vote but only PMC votes are binding.

Olga

Hmmm, I still did not see answers to my questions around the timelines for the Hadoop API stabilization which will influence my vote on this topic.

Apart from that voting for a release that is not yet planned is not defined in the bylaws. I think its closer to the "Release Plan" than it is to "Product Release" action. Irrespective, both of them require Lazy Majority

<snip>

Release Plan Defines the timetable and actions for a release. The plan also nominates a Release Manager. Lazy majority Active committers 3
Product Release 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 Active PMC members 3
</snip>

-----Original Message-----
From: Olga Natkovich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 3:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [VOTE] Pig 1.0!

Hi guys,

We had a lively discussion last week regarding what version number to assign to the major release following Pig 0.9. The discussion can be seen here: http://tinyurl.com/4ng8upa.

Based on the discussion, it seemed that most people were on-board with making next release Pig 1.0 as long as we have done good job stabilizing post Pig 0.9.

I would like to call vote on calling the release Pig 1.0. I believe it is important to finalize the version number prior to starting the work on the release. I believe that this vote is part of Product Release Action and as such is subject to Lazy Majority vote: http://pig.apache.org/bylaws.html.

Please, complete the vote by the end of this Thursday, 3/10. Please, note that anybody is welcome to vote but only PMC votes are binding.

Olga

Hi Santhosh,

We do not have the answers on Hadoop API stabilization and we are not likely to get this for a while given the state of the Hadoop project at the moment. I don't think we can block our progress based on this.

I am fine if we categorize the vote under Release Plan action. As you pointed out, it does not change the rules for the vote.

Olga

-----Original Message-----
From: Santhosh Srinivasan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 3:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Pig 1.0!

Hmmm, I still did not see answers to my questions around the timelines for the Hadoop API stabilization which will influence my vote on this topic.

Apart from that voting for a release that is not yet planned is not defined in the bylaws. I think its closer to the "Release Plan" than it is to "Product Release" action. Irrespective, both of them require Lazy Majority

<snip>

Release Plan Defines the timetable and actions for a release. The plan also nominates a Release Manager. Lazy majority Active committers 3
Product Release 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 Active PMC members 3
</snip>

-----Original Message-----
From: Olga Natkovich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 3:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [VOTE] Pig 1.0!

Hi guys,

We had a lively discussion last week regarding what version number to assign to the major release following Pig 0.9. The discussion can be seen here: http://tinyurl.com/4ng8upa.

Based on the discussion, it seemed that most people were on-board with making next release Pig 1.0 as long as we have done good job stabilizing post Pig 0.9.

I would like to call vote on calling the release Pig 1.0. I believe it is important to finalize the version number prior to starting the work on the release. I believe that this vote is part of Product Release Action and as such is subject to Lazy Majority vote: http://pig.apache.org/bylaws.html.

Please, complete the vote by the end of this Thursday, 3/10. Please, note that anybody is welcome to vote but only PMC votes are binding.

Olga

As I elaborated before, given state of pig project, I would vote "-1" on
next release being 1.0
Ofcourse, it is as mentioned, non binding :-)
Regards,
Mridul

On Tuesday 08 March 2011 04:51 AM, Olga Natkovich wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> We had a lively discussion last week regarding what version number to assign to the major release following Pig 0.9. The discussion can be seen here: http://tinyurl.com/4ng8upa.
>
> Based on the discussion, it seemed that most people were on-board with making next release Pig 1.0 as long as we have done good job stabilizing post Pig 0.9.
>
> I would like to call vote on calling the release Pig 1.0. I believe it is important to finalize the version number prior to starting the work on the release. I believe that this vote is part of Product Release Action and as such is subject to Lazy Majority vote: http://pig.apache.org/bylaws.html.
>
> Please, complete the vote by the end of this Thursday, 3/10. Please, note that anybody is welcome to vote but only PMC votes are binding.
>
> Olga
>

Olga I would really rather take this vote when we are closer to knowing
what's in the release, and have had some experience running 0.9. This vote
seems premature.

D

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Mridul Muralidharan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> As I elaborated before, given state of pig project, I would vote "-1" on
> next release being 1.0
> Ofcourse, it is as mentioned, non binding :-)
>
>
> Regards,
> Mridul
>
>
> On Tuesday 08 March 2011 04:51 AM, Olga Natkovich wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> We had a lively discussion last week regarding what version number to
>> assign to the major release following Pig 0.9. The discussion can be seen
>> here: http://tinyurl.com/4ng8upa.
>>
>> Based on the discussion, it seemed that most people were on-board with
>> making next release Pig 1.0 as long as we have done good job stabilizing
>> post Pig 0.9.
>>
>> I would like to call vote on calling the release Pig 1.0. I believe it is
>> important to finalize the version number prior to starting the work on the
>> release. I believe that this vote is part of Product Release Action and as
>> such is subject to Lazy Majority vote: http://pig.apache.org/bylaws.html.
>>
>> Please, complete the vote by the end of this Thursday, 3/10. Please, note
>> that anybody is welcome to vote but only PMC votes are binding.
>>
>> Olga
>>
>>
>

Before moving to 1.0, I think the public APIs should be refactored a bit. (UDFs, ...: all the classes users extend or use)
Some of the Pig APIs have grown organically and would need changes.
examples:
 - inconsistencies between EvalFunc and Accumulator
 - Algebraic UDFs can not pass FuncSpec parameters to initial,intermed and final
 - UDFContext should be injected to the UDFs
 - all classes/interfaces that user can depend on should be grouped in a separate package (api vs implementation)
Of course this would be done in a soft manner (supporting both APIs for a while)

Now if there's a majority of people that think this can be done after 1.0 I don't have a strong opinion about this.

Julien

On 3/8/11 8:09 AM, "Dmitriy Ryaboy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Olga I would really rather take this vote when we are closer to knowing
what's in the release, and have had some experience running 0.9. This vote
seems premature.

D

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Mridul Muralidharan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> As I elaborated before, given state of pig project, I would vote "-1" on
> next release being 1.0
> Ofcourse, it is as mentioned, non binding :-)
>
>
> Regards,
> Mridul
>
>
> On Tuesday 08 March 2011 04:51 AM, Olga Natkovich wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> We had a lively discussion last week regarding what version number to
>> assign to the major release following Pig 0.9. The discussion can be seen
>> here: http://tinyurl.com/4ng8upa.
>>
>> Based on the discussion, it seemed that most people were on-board with
>> making next release Pig 1.0 as long as we have done good job stabilizing
>> post Pig 0.9.
>>
>> I would like to call vote on calling the release Pig 1.0. I believe it is
>> important to finalize the version number prior to starting the work on the
>> release. I believe that this vote is part of Product Release Action and as
>> such is subject to Lazy Majority vote: http://pig.apache.org/bylaws.html.
>>
>> Please, complete the vote by the end of this Thursday, 3/10. Please, note
>> that anybody is welcome to vote but only PMC votes are binding.
>>
>> Olga
>>
>>
>

The LoadFunc refactoring was painful. I think what you are describing
absolutely needs to happen, but may need to be a 2.0 thing.

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Julien Le Dem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Before moving to 1.0, I think the public APIs should be refactored a bit.
> (UDFs, ...: all the classes users extend or use)
> Some of the Pig APIs have grown organically and would need changes.
> examples:
>  - inconsistencies between EvalFunc and Accumulator
>  - Algebraic UDFs can not pass FuncSpec parameters to initial,intermed and
> final
>  - UDFContext should be injected to the UDFs
>  - all classes/interfaces that user can depend on should be grouped in a
> separate package (api vs implementation)
> Of course this would be done in a soft manner (supporting both APIs for a
> while)
>
> Now if there's a majority of people that think this can be done after 1.0 I
> don't have a strong opinion about this.
>
> Julien
>
> On 3/8/11 8:09 AM, "Dmitriy Ryaboy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Olga I would really rather take this vote when we are closer to knowing
> what's in the release, and have had some experience running 0.9. This vote
> seems premature.
>
> D
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Mridul Muralidharan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> >
> > As I elaborated before, given state of pig project, I would vote "-1" on
> > next release being 1.0
> > Ofcourse, it is as mentioned, non binding :-)
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mridul
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday 08 March 2011 04:51 AM, Olga Natkovich wrote:
> >
> >> Hi guys,
> >>
> >> We had a lively discussion last week regarding what version number to
> >> assign to the major release following Pig 0.9. The discussion can be
> seen
> >> here: http://tinyurl.com/4ng8upa.
> >>
> >> Based on the discussion, it seemed that most people were on-board with
> >> making next release Pig 1.0 as long as we have done good job stabilizing
> >> post Pig 0.9.
> >>
> >> I would like to call vote on calling the release Pig 1.0. I believe it
> is
> >> important to finalize the version number prior to starting the work on
> the
> >> release. I believe that this vote is part of Product Release Action and
> as
> >> such is subject to Lazy Majority vote:
> http://pig.apache.org/bylaws.html.
> >>
> >> Please, complete the vote by the end of this Thursday, 3/10. Please,
> note
> >> that anybody is welcome to vote but only PMC votes are binding.
> >>
> >> Olga
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

I agree with Julien here. I think the public API's should be given more thought, and separated out. In addition, the udf execution context, i.e. hadoop FS calls, task execution environment etc needs to be stratified, and thin wrappers provided from Pig to isolate hadoop API changes (given that hadoop is not guaranteeing api compatibility yet).

- milind

On Mar 9, 2011, at 5:06 PM, Julien Le Dem wrote:

> Before moving to 1.0, I think the public APIs should be refactored a bit. (UDFs, ...: all the classes users extend or use)
> Some of the Pig APIs have grown organically and would need changes.
> examples:
> - inconsistencies between EvalFunc and Accumulator
> - Algebraic UDFs can not pass FuncSpec parameters to initial,intermed and final
> - UDFContext should be injected to the UDFs
> - all classes/interfaces that user can depend on should be grouped in a separate package (api vs implementation)
> Of course this would be done in a soft manner (supporting both APIs for a while)
>
> Now if there's a majority of people that think this can be done after 1.0 I don't have a strong opinion about this.
>
> Julien
>
> On 3/8/11 8:09 AM, "Dmitriy Ryaboy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Olga I would really rather take this vote when we are closer to knowing
> what's in the release, and have had some experience running 0.9. This vote
> seems premature.
>
> D
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Mridul Muralidharan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>>
>> As I elaborated before, given state of pig project, I would vote "-1" on
>> next release being 1.0
>> Ofcourse, it is as mentioned, non binding :-)
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mridul
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday 08 March 2011 04:51 AM, Olga Natkovich wrote:
>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> We had a lively discussion last week regarding what version number to
>>> assign to the major release following Pig 0.9. The discussion can be seen
>>> here: http://tinyurl.com/4ng8upa.
>>>
>>> Based on the discussion, it seemed that most people were on-board with
>>> making next release Pig 1.0 as long as we have done good job stabilizing
>>> post Pig 0.9.
>>>
>>> I would like to call vote on calling the release Pig 1.0. I believe it is
>>> important to finalize the version number prior to starting the work on the
>>> release. I believe that this vote is part of Product Release Action and as
>>> such is subject to Lazy Majority vote: http://pig.apache.org/bylaws.html.
>>>
>>> Please, complete the vote by the end of this Thursday, 3/10. Please, note
>>> that anybody is welcome to vote but only PMC votes are binding.
>>>
>>> Olga
>>>
>>>
>>
>

---
Milind Bhandarkar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1-650-776-3167

Hi,

With one binding +1 and one non-binding -1, this vote FAILED.

Olga

-----Original Message-----
From: Olga Natkovich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 8:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Pig 1.0!

Hi Santhosh,

We do not have the answers on Hadoop API stabilization and we are not likely to get this for a while given the state of the Hadoop project at the moment. I don't think we can block our progress based on this.

I am fine if we categorize the vote under Release Plan action. As you pointed out, it does not change the rules for the vote.

Olga

-----Original Message-----
From: Santhosh Srinivasan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 3:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Pig 1.0!

Hmmm, I still did not see answers to my questions around the timelines for the Hadoop API stabilization which will influence my vote on this topic.

Apart from that voting for a release that is not yet planned is not defined in the bylaws. I think its closer to the "Release Plan" than it is to "Product Release" action. Irrespective, both of them require Lazy Majority

<snip>

Release Plan Defines the timetable and actions for a release. The plan also nominates a Release Manager. Lazy majority Active committers 3
Product Release 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 Active PMC members 3
</snip>

-----Original Message-----
From: Olga Natkovich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 3:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [VOTE] Pig 1.0!

Hi guys,

We had a lively discussion last week regarding what version number to assign to the major release following Pig 0.9. The discussion can be seen here: http://tinyurl.com/4ng8upa.

Based on the discussion, it seemed that most people were on-board with making next release Pig 1.0 as long as we have done good job stabilizing post Pig 0.9.

I would like to call vote on calling the release Pig 1.0. I believe it is important to finalize the version number prior to starting the work on the release. I believe that this vote is part of Product Release Action and as such is subject to Lazy Majority vote: http://pig.apache.org/bylaws.html.

Please, complete the vote by the end of this Thursday, 3/10. Please, note that anybody is welcome to vote but only PMC votes are binding.

Olga