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 guess it would totally make sense. Good you brought it up!

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 01:05PM, Mark Grover wrote:
> 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 -
>