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

Switch to Plain View
MapReduce, mail # dev - Re: [RESULT] - [VOTE] Rename hadoop branches post hadoop-1.x


+
Todd Lipcon 2012-03-28, 18:53
+
Aaron T. Myers 2012-03-28, 18:59
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-03-28, 19:02
+
Owen OMalley 2012-03-28, 19:25
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-03-28, 19:32
+
Owen OMalley 2012-03-28, 19:39
+
Doug Cutting 2012-03-29, 00:11
+
Aaron T. Myers 2012-03-28, 23:11
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-03-28, 20:57
+
Aaron T. Myers 2012-03-28, 21:14
+
Arun C Murthy 2012-03-28, 23:00
+
Scott Carey 2012-03-29, 19:45
+
Aaron T. Myers 2012-03-29, 22:06
+
Milind.Bhandarkar@... 2012-04-03, 18:27
+
Aaron T. Myers 2012-04-03, 20:58
+
Milind.Bhandarkar@... 2012-04-03, 21:37
+
Aaron T. Myers 2012-04-03, 21:44
+
Milind.Bhandarkar@... 2012-04-03, 22:14
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [RESULT] - [VOTE] Rename hadoop branches post hadoop-1.x
Aaron T. Myers 2012-04-03, 22:21
If that's the case then there doesn't seem to be any question here. The
feature is in trunk, and an implementation could be done for an older
release branch that would be compatible with that branch. Sure, the code to
implement the feature is quite different between the two branches, but
trunk will remain a superset of the functionality of the past release, so
no issue.

--
Aaron T. Myers
Software Engineer, Cloudera

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:14 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> To my knowledge, shuffle is already pluggable in 0.23 onwards, as long as
> it is used only by mapreduce framework.
>
> That's why Avner says : "In parallel, I'll try to *learn what exists* in
> 0.23". (Emphasize my own.)
>
> That's why I was wondering about the insistence of committing to trunk
> first.
>
> - Milind
>
> ---
> Milind Bhandarkar
> Greenplum Labs, EMC
> (Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author, and
> do not necessarily represent the views of any organization, past or
> present, the author might be affiliated with.)
>
>
>
> On 4/3/12 2:44 PM, "Aaron T. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:37 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> What would be guideline for a new feature, such as
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-4049, which maintains
> >> compatibility for 1.x, but is not relevant to trunk, because the
> >>codebases
> >> have completely diverged, so cannot be committed to trunk ?
> >>
> >
> >Are you sure this isn't relevant to trunk? The "target versions" field of
> >that JIRA lists both 1.0.x and 0.24.0 (trunk.) In the latest comment on
> >that JIRA, the author appears to intend to do this work for both trunk and
> >1.0:
> >
> >"I want to have the described plugin-ability (desired with same interface)
> >for all future versions of Hadoop (as mentioned in the Target Version/s
> >field). <snip> On the first phase, I am focusing on the existing 1.0
> >branch
> >as I know it. In parallel, I'll try to learn what exists in 0.23"
> >
> >--
> >Aaron T. Myers
> >Software Engineer, Cloudera
>
>
+
Milind.Bhandarkar@... 2012-04-03, 22:24
+
Steve Loughran 2012-04-12, 16:32
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-04-12, 17:27
+
Robert Evans 2012-04-12, 18:19