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

Switch to Plain View
Accumulo, mail # dev - Releasing 1.5


+
John Vines 2013-04-25, 17:48
+
Keith Turner 2013-04-25, 17:56
+
John Vines 2013-04-25, 18:03
+
Keith Turner 2013-04-25, 18:09
+
Christopher 2013-04-25, 18:32
+
John Vines 2013-04-25, 18:54
+
Keith Turner 2013-04-25, 19:32
+
Josh Elser 2013-04-25, 19:37
+
John Vines 2013-04-25, 19:46
+
Keith Turner 2013-04-25, 19:57
+
Josh Elser 2013-04-25, 20:06
+
Keith Turner 2013-04-25, 20:30
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Releasing 1.5
Benson Margulies 2013-04-25, 20:41
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't think there are any issues with having binary-compatible releases
> > as it's the same source underneath.
> >
> > In other words, our source doesn't change whether we compile against CDH,
> > HDP, Apache, etc. That makes me think that we should be fine in creating
> > binary-only releases for the Hadoop offshoots from a licensing
> standpoint.
> >
> >
> I suspect one thing we can not do is endorse any
> particular commercial product thats based on Hadoop.  Would creating an
> Apache Accumulo distribution targeted at Cloudera (and not MapR or
> Hortonworks) be considered endorsing Cloudera?
>
I don't see a problem so long as you don't favor a vendor. You are correct
that 'endorse' in the crude sense of writing text that says that it's
wonderful would be bad. But providing tests that allow certification
against one or more 'distros' seems fine, so long as it's clear that the
tent is open for contributions of the same thing for other targets.

However, keep in mind that there's considerable discontent about the use of
the term  'Hadoop distribution' by Cloudera and friends, so best not to
step in that.

In my view, you'd solicit contributions of test / certification harness
material from all comers. I think it would be a problem to add dependencies
to the standard build to them -- it should be an optional step.

Just my two cents.

>
>
> >
> > On 4/25/13 3:57 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:46 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>  Except we need to consider accessibility and the amount of pain we may
> be
> >>> inflicting upon ourselves.
> >>>
> >>> CDH is used by a lot of people, so by keeping barriers in place to slow
> >>> down trials by users is going to hurt us. And we're also going to be
> hurt
> >>> by those users, and the ones running hadoop 2, because they're going to
> >>> grab our package and start asking us why it's not working (if we're
> >>> lucky,
> >>> they may just give up on us entirely).
> >>>
> >>>  I agree w/ making things easy for users.  We should also make sure we
> >> follow any Apache rules, if there are any.  Would a binary release of
> >> Accumulo made by Apache for cloudera's version of Hadoop be ok?  Is it
> ok
> >> to do this for Cloudera Hadoop and not Hortonworks or MapR hadoop?
> >>
> >> Only creating binary release for Apache Hadoop versions and striving to
> >> ensure our source builds against as many downstream versions as possible
> >> is
> >> one option.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  I agree that we should be prioritizing compatibility with Apache
> Hadoop
> >>>>
> >>> in
> >>>
> >>>> our official releases.
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe documenting some procedures to build against every other 3rd
> >>>> party version is acceptable/sufficient since we have the sources out
> >>>>
> >>> there
> >>>
> >>>> too. I'm also using the word "documenting" very loosely -- a page on
> our
> >>>> site, a README with Maven commands, or even just in an email on this
> >>>> list
> >>>> (indexed by search engines).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 4/25/13 3:32 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>  On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:54 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   What about CDH3U5+ and CDH4? They also require some specialized
> >>>>>
> >>>> packaging
> >>>
> >>>> as well.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>   Maybe only Apache Hadoop should be supported by Apache Accumulo?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Cloudera
> >>>>> could package a downstream version of Accumulo that works w/ their
> >>>>> downstream version of Hadoop if they wanted.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>   So, I have a process in place for releasing the tarballs, rpms,
> >>>>>> debs,
+
Keith Turner 2013-04-26, 12:42
+
David Medinets 2013-04-26, 19:32
+
Billie Rinaldi 2013-04-26, 20:19
+
John Vines 2013-04-26, 20:35
+
Billie Rinaldi 2013-04-26, 21:47
+
Christopher 2013-04-26, 23:24
+
Josh Elser 2013-04-30, 04:01
+
John Vines 2013-04-30, 04:32
+
John Vines 2013-05-07, 15:10
+
Christopher 2013-05-07, 15:23
+
John Vines 2013-05-07, 15:28
+
David Medinets 2013-05-07, 16:38
+
Christopher 2013-04-25, 19:11