I don't want to hi-jack your topic with tech talk if detracts from your
primary purpose, so please re-direct me as you see fit.
There are a lot of details but it seems that the primary problem is that
changes that "break" other code are introduced without
being specifically included.
It's one thing to optimize a function and keep all of the functionality the
same, no segregation should be required. If you're going to change
functionality of a API Call or existing routine, it should be sectioned off
and specifically included (we've got plenty of xml) until the old way is
deprecated for 2 or 3 releases.
I have some ideas but I want to make sure this is the forum. :)
Thanks for all of your work.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> for the past couple of releases of Hadoop 2.X code line the issue
> of integration between Hadoop and its downstream projects has
> become quite a thorny issue. The poster child here is Oozie, where
> every release of Hadoop 2.X seems to be breaking the compatibility
> in various unpredictable ways. At times other components (such
> as HBase for example) also seem to be affected.
> Now, to be extremely clear -- I'm NOT talking about the *latest* version
> of Oozie working with the *latest* version of Hadoop, instead
> my observations come from running previous *stable* releases
> of Bigtop on top of Hadoop 2.X RCs.
> As many of you know Apache Bigtop aims at providing a single
> platform for integration of Hadoop and Hadoop ecosystem projects.
> As such we're uniquely positioned to track compatibility between
> different Hadoop releases with regards to the downstream components
> (things like Oozie, Pig, Hive, Mahout, etc.). Every single single RC
> we've been pretty diligent at trying to provide integration-level feedback
> on the quality of the upcoming release, but it seems that our efforts
> don't quite suffice in Hadoop 2.X stabilizing.
> Of course, one could argue that while Hadoop 2.X code line was
> designated 'alpha' expecting much in the way of perfect integration
> and compatibility was NOT what the Hadoop community was
> focusing on. I can appreciate that view, but what I'm interested in
> is the future of Hadoop 2.X not its past. Hence, here's my question
> to all of you as a Hadoop community at large:
> Do you guys think that the project have reached a point where integration
> and compatibility issues should be prioritized really high on the list
> of things that make or break each future release?
> The good news, is that Bigtop's charter is in big part *exactly* about
> providing you with this kind of feedback. We can easily tell you when
> Hadoop behavior, with regard to downstream components, changes
> between a previous stable release and the new RC (or even branch/trunk).
> What we can NOT do is submit patches for all the issues. We are simply
> too small a project and we need your help with that.
> I truly believe that we owe it to the downstream projects, and in the
> second half of this email I will try to convince you of that.
> We all know that integration projects are impossible to pull off
> unless there's a general consensus between all of the projects involved
> that they indeed need to work with each other. You can NOT force
> that notion, but you can always try to influence. This relationship
> goes both ways.
> Consider a question in front of the downstream communities
> of whether or not to adopt Hadoop 2.X as the basis. To answer
> that question each downstream project has to be reasonably
> sure that their concerns will NOT fall on deaf ears and that
> Hadoop developers are, essentially, 'ready' for them to pick
> up Hadoop 2.X. I would argue that so far the Hadoop community
> had gone out of its way to signal that 2.X codeline is NOT
> ready for the downstream.
> I would argue that moving forward this is a really unfortunate
> situation that may end up undermining the long term success