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

Switch to Threaded View
Bigtop, mail # dev - [DISCUSS] BOM for release 0.7.0 of Bigtop


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] BOM for release 0.7.0 of Bigtop
Venkat Ranganathan 2013-07-10, 01:03
+ Jarek Jarcec Cecho who was missed in the last email.

There is a reason why the Sqoop2 release is called 1.99.x (not even the 2.0
alpha) because it needs some more features to be called Sqoop2.   Currently
there are some customer used Sqoop 1 feature  that are not in Sqoop 1.99.x.
That said,  I am not wedded to this view.   I might have misunderstood the
charter to mean things differently than what you intended.

Venkat
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Mark Grover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>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
> > > > making Sqoop 1 the default sqoop version
> > > >
> > >
> > > Wouldn't that make an upgrade from Bigtop 0.6 to 0.7 a Sqoop downgrade?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > >    - Andy
> > >
> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > (via Tom White)
> > >
> >
>