Glen Mazza 2013-01-18, 14:48
Andrew Purtell 2013-01-18, 20:37
-Re: Cohesion of Hadoop team?
Matt Foley 2013-01-18, 18:59
The policy should be stated :-) It is: "All new features must be
committed to trunk before or simultaneously with being committed to a
Thus, we don't forbid new features from being added to the Hadoop-1 branch,
but they must be back-ports of features already added to trunk/Hadoop-2.
Hadoop-1 continues to live because it is very stable and the community
needs time to stabilize the great new major features in Hadoop-2. But most
of us are looking forward to moving to Hadoop-2 when it is ready. By
keeping Hadoop-1 in good shape in the meantime, we assure that the
transition can be smooth and reasonably comfortable for the end-user
companies that depend on Hadoop for business-critical use.
Hadoop-1 release manager
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Absolutely not true.
> We have a clear policy in place which ensures there is no feature
> disparity between hadoop-1 and hadoop-2. So, hadoop-2 is a super-set of
> functionality in hadoop-1 and there is no disparity.
> On Jan 18, 2013, at 6:48 AM, Glen Mazza wrote:
> Hi, looking at the derivation of the 0.23.x & 2.0.x branches on one hand,
> and the 1.x branches on the other, as described here:
> One gets the impression the Hadoop committers are split into two teams,
> with one team working on 0.23.x/2.0.2 and another team working on 1.x,
> running the risk of increasingly diverging products eventually competing
> with each other. Is that the case? Is there expected to be a Hadoop 3.0
> where the results of the two lines of development will merge or is it
> increasingly likely the subteams will continue their separate routes?
> Glen Mazza
> Talend Community Coders - coders.talend.com
> blog: www.jroller.com/gmazza
> Arun C. Murthy
> Hortonworks Inc.