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
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2012, at 8:50 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote:
>> Chris, thanks for initiating the discussion.
> Likewise, thanks Chris!
>> IMO a pre-requisite to this is to figure out how we'll handle the following:
> Good points - I'd recommend we keep Common and HDFS in the same project.

That seems reasonable. The alternative would be to have a Common TLP,
which we shouldn't necessarily dismiss, since more important than the
size of the codebase is that there's a community to support the
codebase, as there certainly is here. Having said that, a Common TLP
lacks a clear 'mission' since it doesn't offer any standalone
services. Also, it may diminish in utility over time if pieces are
moved into HDFS, MapReduce and YARN.

> Yes, MR/YARN will need some changes in Common occasionally, but core pieces like RPC have been maintained by HDFS folks over time anyway e.g. move to ProtoBufs were led by Sanjay, Suresh, Todd, Jitendra et al.

Does the work to use versioned protocol buffers for RPC mean that
different releases of HDFS and MapReduce can work together yet? If
not, this is something we should be working towards (although that
shouldn't block a move to TLPs).

> We can move SequenceFile into MR if necessary and keep same package names for compatibility.

There are also Hadoop tools like distcp, Hadoop archives, Streaming,
etc, which should go with MapReduce.


> We should, of course, stop tweaking things in different projects in the same jira - we've been reasonably good at not doing that.
> Thoughts?
> Arun
>> * Where does common stuff lives?
>> * What are the public interfaces of each project (towards the other projects)?
>> * How do we do development/releases? In tandem? Separate? How this
>> will work in practice, currently we are constantly tweaking things
>> inter-projects, sometimes in the same JIRAs, sometimes in follow up
>> JIRAs.
>> Thoughts?
>> Thxs.
>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [decided to minimize traffic and to simply put this in one thread]
>>> Hi Guys,
>>> See the recent discussion on these threads:
>>> YARN as its own Hadoop "sub project": http://s.apache.org/WW1
>>> Maintain a single committer list for the Hadoop project: http://s.apache.org/Owx
>>> ...and just pay attention to the Hadoop project over the last 3-4 years. It's operating
>>> as a single project, that's masking separate communities that themselves are really
>>> separate ASF projects.
>>> At the ASF, this has been a problem area called "umbrella" projects and over the years,
>>> all I've seen from them is wasted bandwidth, artificial barriers and the inventions of
>>> new ways to perform process mongering and to reduce the fun in developing software
>>> at this fantastic foundation.
>>> I've talked about umbrella projects enough. We've diverted conversation enough.
>>> Enough people have tried to act like there is some technical mumbo jumbo that is
>>> preventing the eventual act of higher power that I myself hope comes should these
>>> discussions prove unfruitful through normal means.
>>> *these. are. separate. projects.*
>>> *there.are.not.blocker.issues.from.spinning.out.these.projects.as.their.own.communities*
>>> In this email: http://s.apache.org/rSm
>>> And in the 2 subsequent follow ons in that thread, I've outlined a process that I'll copy
>>> through below for splitting these projects into their own TLPs:
>>> -----snip
>>> Process:
>>> 0. [DISCUSS] thread for <TLP name> in which you talk about #1 and #2 below, potentially draft resolution too.
>>> 1. Decide on an initial set of *PMC* members. I urge each new TLP to adopt PMC==C. See reasons I've
>>> already discussed.
>>> 2. Decide on a chair. Try not to VOTE for this explicitly, see if can be discussed and consensus
>>> can be reached (just a thought experiment). VOTE if necessary.