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

Switch to Threaded View
Pig >> mail # user >> [DISCUSSION] Pig.next


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pig.next
What is wrong with porky the pig as the logo?

:)

That's all folks!

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 3, 2011, at 1:03 PM, Eric Lubow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Coming from a user's perspective, I would have the following to say:
>
> Anyone who is using Hadoop has an obvious understanding that 1.0 doesn't
> really mean much if it's in use (which Pig obviously is).  What 1.0 has the
> potential to do for someone like me is that I may be able to go to Amazon
> and say, look, Pig is at 1.0 and you are still offering 0.6 on EMR.  Having
> Pig on something like EMR is what allows wider spread adoption because it
> lowers the barrier to entry.
>
> I am not an expert at any of this stuff (in fact, I don't even know Java),
> but I am able to use Hadoop and then train others to write MR jobs with a
> fair amount of ease because of a query language like Pig.  Tagging it with
> 1.0 might make a statement to larger organizations, but most smaller
> companies and startups just want to know it's usable.  And since there is no
> alpha or beta attached anywhere, that's good enough for most.
>
> The only caveat is that I am working off of Pig 0.6 because all my data is
> in S3 and I use Elastic Map Reduce for my jobs.
>
> The only other thing I would say is that if Pig goes 1.0, can it get a new
> logo? I know there are a lot of +1s for this so I figured I would throw my
> +1 here too.
>
> -e
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 13:43, Alan Gates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I agree that there will probably need to be several 0.9.x releases as the
>> new optimization and parser work mature.  As a consequence of this it may be
>> longer between 0.9 and Pig.next then there has been between the last few
>> releases.  That only delays the question of what we call Pig.next, it does
>> not answer it.
>>
>> To me, declaring 1.0 would mean the following things:
>>
>> 1) Pig is ready for production use, at least by the brave.
>> 2) It is still rough around the edges, you do not get a smooth product
>> until 2.0 or later.
>> 3) We will not make non-backward compatible changes to interfaces we have
>> declared stable.
>>
>> Pig is in use in production in multiple places, I do not think anyone will
>> argue that it is not rough around the edges, and because we have users who
>> run tens of thousands of Pig jobs daily non-backward compatible changes are
>> impossible anyway.
>>
>> As for waiting for Hadoop to go 1.0, that is like waiting for Congress to
>> fix social security.  I am sure they will get there, but I may be retired
>> first.  In all seriousness, the Hadoop project has not been moving with
>> speed or agility over the last few years, and I do not think waiting for
>> them to do something is a good idea.  Nor do I see it as necessary.  Before
>> we could go 1.0 would we insist that every jar we import is >= 1.0?  Yes we
>> are bound more tightly to Hadoop then we are to log4j.  But we are still our
>> own project.  1.0 is a claim we are making about ourselves, not about the
>> platform we run on.  We should choose our release numbering in a way that
>> sends a clear message to our users, and let those same users evaluate Hadoop
>> separately.
>>
>> Also the argument that we should not go 1.0 because we are changing a lot
>> of things is bogus.  We are always changing a lot of things.  If 1.0 means
>> we will not make any major changes, then we will not get there until we go
>> into some kinds of maintenance mode where we deem the majority of the work
>> to have been done.  I hope I have retired before we reach that state.
>>
>> My perspective on what 1.0 means obviously comes from a developer inside
>> the project.  I would be interested in hearing from users and anyone with a
>> more marketing oriented perspective on what message 1.0 would send to
>> (potential) pig users.
>>
>> Alan.
>>
>> On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:31 PM, Dmitriy Ryaboy wrote:
>>
>> I am worried that the new optimization plan work has not had a chance to
>>> settle in, and we are releasing a brand new parser for the language in