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

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


+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-09, 03:50
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-07-09, 15:59
+
Sean Mackrory 2013-07-09, 16:47
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-09, 17:11
+
Bruno Mahé 2013-07-09, 17:10
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-09, 17:40
+
Peter Linnell 2013-07-09, 20:40
+
Bruno Mahé 2013-07-10, 06:37
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-09, 17:06
+
Anatoli Fomenko 2013-07-09, 20:39
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-09, 20:54
+
Venkat Ranganathan 2013-07-09, 21:52
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-07-09, 21:58
+
Venkat Ranganathan 2013-07-09, 23:42
+
Mark Grover 2013-07-10, 00:19
+
Venkat Ranganathan 2013-07-10, 01:03
+
Jarek Jarcec Cecho 2013-07-10, 17:45
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-07-10, 00:29
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-10, 02:51
+
Sean Mackrory 2013-07-10, 04:06
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-10, 04:10
+
Bruno Mahé 2013-07-10, 06:33
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] BOM for release 0.7.0 of Bigtop
And my apologies for duplicating half my draft :)

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Sean Mackrory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> To start with I don't even understand what it means 'make version X a default'
>
> I think what they/we mean is which one gets to be called just "sqoop"
> in the directories and command names, and which one has its version as
> a suffix (e.g. "sqoop1", "sqoop2"). Alternatively they could both have
> the suffix. I don't feel that strongly any particular way, just
> clarifying what I think is meant.
>
> command is just called "sqoop", and which one has its version as a
> suffix (i.e. "sqoop1", sqoop2"). Alternately they could both have the
> suffix. I don't feel that strongly any particular way, just clarifying
> what I think is meant.
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> To start with I don't even understand what it means 'make version X a
>> default'. All components including into BOM are equal, except for Hadoop that
>> is more equal than others ;)
>>
>> At any rate: bleeding edge mantra is just what we like to present Bigtop, it
>> isn't really a policy of the project. Besides, Bigtop 0.6.0 was used as a
>> stabilization of the stack based on Hadoop 2.0.x, namely 2.0.5
>>
>> Another alternative to having Sqoop 1.x returned is too quickly bake 0.6.1
>> (along with Bruno's original idea), but with a single change in its BOM, ie
>> Sqoop 1.x added into it.
>> The scope of the release would be really limited, e.g. just one JIRA, and we
>> should be able to get it out in a matter of a couple of days without
>> disrupting 0.7.0.  If this seems like a good way to go - let's separate these
>> two and keep pn 0.7.0 discussion.
>>
>> Thoughts,
>>   Cos
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 05:19PM, Mark Grover 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 <
>> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I would also suggest we revert back to
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-23, 16:34
+
Roman Shaposhnik 2013-08-06, 02:20
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-08-06, 04:17
+
Bruno Mahe 2013-07-09, 17:57
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-10, 17:52
+
Mark Grover 2013-07-10, 19:19
+
Sean Mackrory 2013-07-11, 18:24
+
Mark Grover 2013-07-12, 20:05
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-07-12, 20:12
+
Andrew Bayer 2013-07-12, 20:24
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-07-12, 20:46
+
Andrew Bayer 2013-07-12, 21:02
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-23, 16:27
+
Alan Gates 2013-07-23, 17:41
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-07-23, 18:15
+
Jarek Jarcec Cecho 2013-07-23, 18:33
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-07-23, 18:52
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-23, 18:51
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-23, 18:50
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-13, 23:55
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-07-16, 17:48
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-07-13, 23:50