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

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop >> mail # general >> DISCUSSION: Cut a hadoop-0.20.0-append release from the tip of branch-0.20-append branch?

Copy link to this message
Re: DISCUSSION: Cut a hadoop-0.20.0-append release from the tip of branch-0.20-append branch?
I also think building 0.20-append will be a major distraction from moving
0.22 forward with all the great new features, including the new append
implementation, sitting on the bench because we are delaying the release.
It seems to be beneficial for the entire community to focus on 0.22 rather
than chasing both birds.

I hear a concern that 0.22 will lack large scale testing as was the case
with 0.21.
I'd like to volunteer to put as many large scale resources, as I can grasp,
into stabilizing of 0.22. Under Nigel's management of course.
This should get us to production quality in 3-6 months rather than
"another 12-15". I also hope it can go even faster/better if others
could join the effort. I see > 100 companies claiming they are powered by
Apache Hadoop.

I also hope with this effort HBase will be able to start moving to the new
append implementation in the next 2-3 months, which in turn will help 0.22
rather than divert resources from it as it would have be with 0.20-append.

Stack, will this plan will work for HBase survival?

One other thought. Apache Hadoop community is not in control of external
releases and distributions, but we should not fork our own releases by
competing apis. If we can keep the dev line relatively straight the external
will follow.

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Ryan Rawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The append solution in 0.22 that you are referring to was supposed to
> be out 13-15 months ago.  Pardon if I look for solutions that deploy 4
> months ago (as the 0.20 append branch did).
> Another 12-15 months of delay is not exactly helping HDFS either.
> -ryan
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Jakob Homan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's difficult to support this proposal knowing how much time would be
> > spent preparing an official release, continuing to support it and
> > continuing to two support two separate implementations of append.  I
> > believe that effort would be better spent getting out a kick-ass 22
> > (or, barring that, a *really* kick-ass 23).
> >
> > The Promised Land that we say we're all trying to get to is regular,
> > timely, feature-complete, tested, innovative but stable releases of
> > new versions of Apache Hadoop.  Missing out any one of those criteria
> > discovered will continue (and has continued) the current situation
> > where quasi-official branches and outside distributions fill the void
> > such a release should.  The effort to maintain this offical branch and
> > fix the bugs that will be discovered could be better spent moving us
> > closer to that goal.
> >
> > I'm certainly sympathetic to the difficult position our quagmire has
> > placed HBase into.  However, the current proposal would hurt HDFS to
> > help HBase. The best solution for that project, as well as for HDFS,
> > is to get HDFS back to a healthy release cycle; not prolong or codify
> > the current ad-hoc state of affairs.  Let's stop digging this hole.
> > -jakob
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:33 AM, M. C. Srivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> [ Sorry if this is be-laboring the obvious ]
> >>
> >> There are two append solutions floating around, and they are
> incompatible
> >> with each other. Thus, the two "branches" will forever remain
> incompatible
> >> with each other, regardless of how they are numbered (0.22,  0.23,
>  0.20.3,
> >> e.t.c.)
> >>
> >> Unless both are merged into one branch, and a switch provided to  "use
> >> HDFS-200 append" or "use 0.22 append", we have effectively split Hadoop
> into
> >> two.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Owen O'Malley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Features are not release version tags.  If there is a security bug
> >>> > found then we would have to release a new version of the append
> >>> > version, and a round of severe trout slapping would result.
> >>> >