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

Switch to Threaded View
Bigtop >> mail # dev >> [DISCUSS] BOM for release 0.7.0 of Bigtop

Copy link to this message
Re: [DISCUSS] BOM for release 0.7.0 of Bigtop
I would like to thank the Bigtop community for the job that you are doing. I personally see a great value in integrating all the various Hadoop ecosystem projects under one roof and making sure that they are working with each other. Thank you!

We had discussions about what Sqoop community would like to see in Bigtop distribution on our last Sqoop user meet up. We've agreed there that Sqoop2 is our primary focus and the future of the project. However for the time being Sqoop1 contains far more features (incremental import, various special connectors, ...) and downstream integrations (Avro, Hive, HBase, HCatalog, ...) in comparison with Sqoop2. Thus we as a Sqoop community would prefer for sake of our users to have both major versions available inside the BigTop distribution. Sqoop1 for users who needs all the advance features and Sqoop2 for pushing the future direction to people, so that we can get early feedback and incorporate it into the project. I strongly believe that we as a community do understand that it's just our wish that might not fit into BigTop philosophy of releasing bleeding edge versions, so please do not take this as that we are forcing Bigtop to include both major versions. I believe that Sqoop community will understand if BigTop community decides to include only Sqoop2 for the 0.7 release.


On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:03:20PM -0700, Venkat Ranganathan wrote:
> + Jarek Jarcec Cecho who was missed in the last email.
> There is a reason why the Sqoop2 release is called 1.99.x (not even the 2.0
> alpha) because it needs some more features to be called Sqoop2.   Currently
> there are some customer used Sqoop 1 feature  that are not in Sqoop 1.99.x.
> That said,  I am not wedded to this view.   I might have misunderstood the
> charter to mean things differently than what you intended.
> Venkat
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Mark Grover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > I am inclined against making Sqoop1 the default version in Bigtop precisely
> > because of the point Andrew raised. Moreover, we had some good reasons when
> > we moved to Sqoop2 that resonated with Bigtop's charter of a cutting edge
> > distribution and helping in the stabilization of Hadoop ecosystem projects.
> > More details at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-805
> >
> > As far as adding back Sqoop1 back to Bigtop is concerned, this is a
> > community led project, so if the community wants it, it will happen:-) The
> > general sentiment when introducing Sqoop2 was that there wasn't a need for
> > having 2 versions of Sqoop. From poking around, I think we did the same for
> > Flume when migrating from Flume OG to Flume NG (
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-323).
> >
> > As far as Sqoop2 being preview releases, one could argue that the Hadoop
> > releases bigtop bundles are preview as well. In my personal opinion, the
> > charter of Bigtop, is to be that very cutting edge well tested distribution
> > that helps in stabilizing them along the way. Personally, I feel like
> > Sqoop2 being default falls in line with that. Given the above, I would
> > personally vote for Sqoop2 being present in BOM. And, adding Sqoop1 back in
> > as non-default Sqoop if there is traction in the community.
> >
> > I am open to feedback, though. What do others think?
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Venkat Ranganathan <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I understand.  The discussion we had was around the current distributions
> > > ship with Sqoop 1.x as the default sqoop product (primarily because
> > Sqoop 2
> > > is in preview releases currently.   The current focus of the team is to
> > > bring sqoop 2 to fruition quickly but Sqoop 1.x is the release that
> > > customers currently are  using and hence the suggestion.
> > >
> > > Venkat
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Venkat Ranganathan <