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
Benson Margulies 2013-04-25, 20:41
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
Copy link to this message
Re: Releasing 1.5
I would also like to point out that hbase is putting out separate releases
for hadoop1 and hadoop2 (
http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/hbase/hbase-0.95.0). They also have
support for both via maven, however they implemented a compatibility module
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6405) which brings the schism
down to a single jar that needs to be interchanged. That may be something
we want to consider for 1.6.

The reason that I care about this is I'm working on things on top of
Accumulo, but against multiple versions of hadoop. I want to be able to
easily able to build against different versions of Accumulo 1.5 without
have to kill my local repo, reinstall accumulo built against my target
version of hadoop, etc. etc. It would be SOOOO much more convenient to just
switch my accumulo version from 1.5 to 1.5-hadoop2 and be done with it.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:32 AM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I've always been an advocate of sticking to vanilla compatibility, but
> maintaining ability to be compatible with other versions. Hadoop 2ish
> things are the first case where we are beginning to see broken run-time
> compatibility due to some API changes. While the fragmented state of hadoop
> creates a larger set of jars, even just hadoop 1 vs. hadoop2 is enough to
> break things. I think priority number 1 should be compile time
> compatibility with everything, followed by attempts for full runtime
> compatibility. Obviously this can't happen, but it can be achieved by
> identical source but split compiled resources, and I think that may be
> something we have to do. If we're putting in the legwork to know how to
> successfully run against hadoop_variant_8271, we may as well provide a
> compiled unit for it as well.
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Funny enough, I gothit by these shenanigans last night when I was trying
>> to run trunk against CDH3 locally. After working through jars that were
>> marked asprovidedand weren't, and then running into
>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/ACCUMULO-837<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-837>,
>> I threw in the towel and called it a night.
>> I think one thing we can all agree upon is that the "fragmented" state of
>> Hadoop distributions is a pain to work around; however, we do have a very
>> broad coverage across that variance just on our committer list. Considering
>> Benson's comments on the subject of "supporting" non-Apache Hadoop
>> variants, I would think that it's in our best interest to provide some
>> level of warm-fuzzy in terms of support. I'm worried about making people
>> chase their tails just to get Accumulo up and running on their flavor of
>> choice.
>> As far as what we distribute, I'm still of the mindset that support for
>> building Accumulo against other versions of Hadoop can be satisfied by
>> instructions on how to do so. Thus, I would say that Accumulo's default
>> dependency should continue to track Apache Hadoop's stable as it currently
>> does (maybe revisiting classifiers for 1.6?). I would say we can revisit
>> the subject of the src jars we publish when/if a flavor breaks Accumulo's
>> compilation.
>> Thoughts?
>> On 4/26/2013 4:35 PM, John Vines wrote:
>>> I had issues running a hadoop2 compiled version of accumulo against
>>> CDH4, I
>>> can't remember the specifics of it though.
>>> When I said specialized packaging, I was thinking of a naming convention
>>> to
>>> distinguish hadoop1 vs. hadoop2 ( vs. vendor-specific hadoop) compiled
>>> jars.
>>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Billie Rinaldi <
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>**wrote:
>>>  I'm not sure we are talking about actual vendor-specific code.  We are
>>>> deciding whether or not to create additional release tarballs that have
>>>> been compiled against various vendors' Hadoop-compatible file systems.
>>>> Assuming that we determine there is nothing prohibiting us from doing
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