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

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop, mail # general - [DISCUSS] Spin out MR, HDFS and YARN as their own TLPs and disband Hadoop umbrella project

Copy link to this message
Re: [DISCUSS] Spin out MR, HDFS and YARN as their own TLPs and disband Hadoop umbrella project
Mattmann, Chris A 2012-08-31, 06:15
Hi Andrew,

How many new Apache Foundation *members* has the Hadoop PMC added over the past
3-4 years, and by whom (the answer to this question might surprise you)?

The thing you and others continue not to see is that the ASF isn't about the
most superior technical solutions, or the best refactorings to prevent Google Guava
dependencies, the ASF is about *community* _over_ *code*.

Period. The metrics that the Foundation and its members are interested in are
the metrics that demonstrate the health of the project. Technical prowess and
market-share are great, as are diverse, hungry, downstream user communities.
But the ASF is here to create communities, communities that work together to
develop code for public good at no charge to the public. Scope out Board
resolutions to create projects and read the repetitive text in them -- there's a
pattern there that elucidates this.

Also, the project members and community members here could slice and
dice the project into 50 different Top Level Projects, but it doesn't mean that
Hadoop would be at its "ending".

On Aug 30, 2012, at 11:02 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:

> Looking at the voting, it appears YARN wants to become a TLP RIGHT NOW but
> at the price of the complete decoherence of the Apache Hadoop platform. For
> all of us who have invested in the Apache Hadoop platform, how does this
> benefit us? Certainly our interests seem to get little consideration with
> this plan to just blow everything up tomorrow.
> How does a downstream project that imports HDFS and MapReduce coordinate
> the shared dependencies with those new projects? For, example Guava. One
> could have a multi way library incompatibility problem; this has already
> happened in the large with HDFS, HBase, and Pig. It's DLL hell magnified 3
> or 4 times just in the smoking ruins of "core". The obvious answer is: Once
> these pieces are moving in different trajectories at different rates, end
> users and downstream projects will be forced to negotiate with many
> parties, and those parties explicitly wont care about the issues concerning
> another, according to this discussion. YARN must have broken our
> minicluster based MapReduce tests 5 times over the last year. HDFS took up
> a certain version of Guava and this required us to refactor some code to
> match that version. We had a coherent group of committers to assist us then
> but that would go away. Proponents of the split seem to want exactly this
> situation. BigTop was suggested as a vehicle for addressing that concern
> but then explicitly rejected on this thread. A commercial vendor looking to
> torpedo the ability of anyone to build something on Apache Hadoop directly
> couldn't come up with a better plan, because only a full time operation can
> be expected to have the resources to harmonize the pieces plus all of their
> dependencies with build patches, code wrangling, testing, testing, testing.
> Volunteer contributor and committer time is a precious gift. I wonder if
> the many professional full time Hadoop devs voting here have lost sight of
> this. Pushing your integration work downstream doesn't mean resources will
> be there to pick it up. Downstream projects could be forced to reluctantly
> abandon working with Apache releases for a commercial distribution such as
> CDH, or the MapR platform. Or, they will be unable to move from a "known
> good" combination in the face of a combinatorial explosion of dependency
> changes, so their general utility to the end user steadily declines. Maybe
> the consensus is that is acceptable, but I would find that kind of a sad
> ending to this remarkable project.
> On Friday, August 31, 2012, Devaraj Das wrote:
>> Andrew's points are fair IMHO. In general, I think it makes sense to have
>> the TLPs but we aren't there yet (as others have pointed out). I'd propose
>> that we should think about the timelines (maybe an appropriate time is when
>> we have Hadoop-2.0 GA'ed).
>> On Aug 30, 2012, at 7:11 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA