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

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop, mail # dev - Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta
Roman Shaposhnik 2013-05-15, 21:54
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please list down all the issues that BigTop ran into *because of* new features.

Whether the bug is *because of* new feature or not is a red herring
for my argument. Please lets drop this distinction. I never used it.

> You continue to argue that new features are destabilizing 2.0.*,
> which I don't agree with at all. 2.0.3-alpha was the last time major
> features got merged in, and we found blockers irrespective of those.

This is not my argument at all. I apologize if somehow I failed to
communicate it, but here's what my argument boils down to:
given *my* experience with Hadoop 2.0.x series and Bigtop
release every time I try a different release of Hadoop 2.0.x
I run into issues that scare me. They scare me because
they are so basic yet they make component like Sqoop
and Oozie (and I believe Giraph on one occasion)
pretty much DOA for YARN-base mapreduce implementation.

In my mind, what that translates into is the fact that nobody
did *any* real testing of a particular downstream component
running on a given Hadoop 2.0.x release. Like I said --
the issues so far make the components in question DOA.

Effectively the onion of issues remain unpeeled, so to speak.

What I'm asking on this thread (and somehow nobody is willing
to give me a straight answer) is whether the Hadoop community
is willing to invest in peeling this onion of issues somewhat more
before declaring Hadoop 2.0.5 a beta release.

Once again it is a binary question -- please give me an answer
of yes or no.

> I am not arguing that new features *may* destabilize the branch, but you've repeatedly stated this as if that were a fact.

Your list of issues is pretty complete (give or take a few that I didn't file
but Cos and others did). And I'd be the first one to agree that
it is not a large list of issues. What scares me is not its size,
but the fact how basic they are and how the block the *rest*
of the testing completely.

To be extra clear -- what scares me about something like
MAPREDUCE-5240 is not whether it came as a result of
a merge or was sitting there since day one. What scares
me is that we've identified it last week and yet Sqoop 2 is
DOA in its presense.

How many more issues like that one (regardless of how
they originated) are in branch-2? Wouldn't we want to
know before declaring Hadoop 2.0.5 beta?

Now, knowing would require work -- that's what my
argument is all about.
Thanks,
Roman.