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

Switch to Plain View
Bigtop, mail # dev - [DISCUSS] BOM for release 0.7.0 of Bigtop


+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-09, 03:50
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-07-09, 15:59
+
Sean Mackrory 2013-07-09, 16:47
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-09, 17:11
+
Bruno Mahé 2013-07-09, 17:10
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-09, 17:40
+
Peter Linnell 2013-07-09, 20:40
+
Bruno Mahé 2013-07-10, 06:37
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-09, 17:06
+
Anatoli Fomenko 2013-07-09, 20:39
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-09, 20:54
+
Venkat Ranganathan 2013-07-09, 21:52
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-07-09, 21:58
+
Venkat Ranganathan 2013-07-09, 23:42
+
Mark Grover 2013-07-10, 00:19
+
Venkat Ranganathan 2013-07-10, 01:03
+
Jarek Jarcec Cecho 2013-07-10, 17:45
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-07-10, 00:29
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-10, 02:51
+
Sean Mackrory 2013-07-10, 04:06
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-10, 04:10
+
Bruno Mahé 2013-07-10, 06:33
+
Sean Mackrory 2013-07-10, 04:07
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-23, 16:34
+
Roman Shaposhnik 2013-08-06, 02:20
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-08-06, 04:17
+
Bruno Mahe 2013-07-09, 17:57
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-10, 17:52
+
Mark Grover 2013-07-10, 19:19
+
Sean Mackrory 2013-07-11, 18:24
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] BOM for release 0.7.0 of Bigtop
Mark Grover 2013-07-12, 20:05
Also, what about Hive 0.11?

It's been released for a while now. It's also the first release of Hive
that contains Hive Server2 (with support for concurrent queries). It also
contains HCatalog as a part of Hive (since HCatalog graduated the incubator
to become a part of Hive). I think this will be a great addition to Bigtop
0.7.

I understand, like Cos said, the focus of Bigtop 0.7 is to pay off our
technical debt but I think Hive 0.11 is worth the investment in Bigtop 0.7
primarily because of all the goodness it brings in.

If no one has any objections, can we add it to the BOM for 0.7 please?

Thanks!
Mark

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Sean Mackrory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> I would agree. As I've said I really don't have a strong opinion on
> which one should be the "default" or whether we should do separate
> releases, but I also don't object to any of the proposals so far. I'm
> happy to lend a hand if needed, having already packaged these two
> side-by-side successfully before, but it's not very hard from a
> technical standpoint.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Mark Grover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thanks everyone for your feedback!
> >
> > I think we are moving towards a consensus where we should put sqoop2 as
> the
> > only sqoop in Bigtop 0.7 BOM. We, as a community, are very open to adding
> > Sqoop1 back in Bigtop (0.6.1 or 0.7.0, whatever the decision is). We will
> > just have to ensure (and it shouldn't be too hard to do so) that there
> are
> > no namespace/command name conflicts between sqoop1 and the sqoop already
> > present in Bigtop (sqoop2). BIGTOP-1016 seems to be a good starting place
> > for that.
> >
> > Do folks agree with the above?
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> No, I meant stability of the framework itself: packaging, iTest, etc.
> >> Perhaps
> >> stability is too overloaded... robustness, perhaps?
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 10:57AM, Bruno Mahe wrote:
> >> > Bigtop as a framework? You mean stable api of its projects?
> >> >
> >> > Sent from my HTC EVO 4G LTE exclusively from Sprint
> >> >
> >> > ----- Reply message -----
> >> > From: "Konstantin Boudnik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > Cc: "Sean Mackrory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > Subject: [DISCUSS] BOM for release 0.7.0 of Bigtop
> >> > Date: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 10:40
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Bruno,
> >> >
> >> > just to clarify my stance of 'stability': it is more about stability
> of
> >> the
> >> > Bigtop as a framework than a stability of the stack.
> >> >
> >> > I am not sure we have resources to do maintenance releases at this
> >> point. May
> >> > be it is just me.
> >> >
> >> > Cos
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 10:10AM, Bruno MahИ wrote:
> >> > > On 07/09/2013 09:47 AM, Sean Mackrory wrote:
> >> > >> Without wanting to detract from the spirit of focussing on system
> >> > >> stability, I'd like to suggest a few changes I think it's time we
> at
> >> least
> >> > >> discuss seriously:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> JDKs: I've seen a lot of people ask about JDK 7. Perhaps time to
> add
> >> > >> support for Oracle JDK 7? It's working pretty well in my
> experience,
> >> and
> >> > >> although it's less tested upstream, the only JDK we officially
> >> support is
> >> > >> officially EOL, so we're not exactly in a good position now IMO.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Debian 7 has also been out for a while, and I think we should do at
> >> least
> >> > >> one release on it. It's likely very little work but I think there's
> >> value
> >> > >> in certifying the stack will work well there. (On the topic of
> OS's -
> >> are
> >> > >> we specifically talking SP3 of SLES 11?). I don't feel strongly on
> >> this,
> >> > >> but I'm just curious if there's a reason you're suggesting staying
> >> with
> >> > >> 12.10 and not 13.04 - other than wanting less change in this
> release?
> >> > >> Again, I hardly have an opinion on that one.
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-07-12, 20:12
+
Andrew Bayer 2013-07-12, 20:24
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-07-12, 20:46
+
Andrew Bayer 2013-07-12, 21:02
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-23, 16:27
+
Alan Gates 2013-07-23, 17:41
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-07-23, 18:15
+
Jarek Jarcec Cecho 2013-07-23, 18:33
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-07-23, 18:52
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-23, 18:51
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-23, 18:50
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-13, 23:55
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-07-16, 17:48
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-13, 23:50