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

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo, mail # dev - Releasing 1.5


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Releasing 1.5
Josh Elser 2013-04-30, 04:01
Funny enough, I gothit by these shenanigans last night when I was trying
to run trunk against CDH3 locally. After working through jars that were
marked asprovidedand weren't, and then running into
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-837, I threw in the towel
and called it a night.

I think one thing we can all agree upon is that the "fragmented" state
of Hadoop distributions is a pain to work around; however, we do have a
very broad coverage across that variance just on our committer list.
Considering Benson's comments on the subject of "supporting" non-Apache
Hadoop variants, I would think that it's in our best interest to provide
some level of warm-fuzzy in terms of support. I'm worried about making
people chase their tails just to get Accumulo up and running on their
flavor of choice.

As far as what we distribute, I'm still of the mindset that support for
building Accumulo against other versions of Hadoop can be satisfied by
instructions on how to do so. Thus, I would say that Accumulo's default
dependency should continue to track Apache Hadoop's stable as it
currently does (maybe revisiting classifiers for 1.6?). I would say we
can revisit the subject of the src jars we publish when/if a flavor
breaks Accumulo's compilation.

Thoughts?

On 4/26/2013 4:35 PM, John Vines wrote:
> I had issues running a hadoop2 compiled version of accumulo against CDH4, I
> can't remember the specifics of it though.
>
>
> When I said specialized packaging, I was thinking of a naming convention to
> distinguish hadoop1 vs. hadoop2 ( vs. vendor-specific hadoop) compiled jars.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Billie Rinaldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure we are talking about actual vendor-specific code.  We are
>> deciding whether or not to create additional release tarballs that have
>> been compiled against various vendors' Hadoop-compatible file systems.
>> Assuming that we determine there is nothing prohibiting us from doing this,
>> I think it would simply be up to the release manager (i.e. anyone who
>> assembles a release and calls a vote for it).  If someone cares enough
>> about a particular distribution to build and create an extra tarball, they
>> can.  However, I don't think this is common for Apache projects --
>> additional packaging is usually left to supporting companies.  I haven't
>> even noticed any releases yet that come in Hadoop 1 and Hadoop 2 flavors.
>>
>> I haven't heard (until now) that Accumulo compiled against an appropriate
>> version of Apache Hadoop will not work with CDH, but John says that's the
>> case.  John, have you tried this?  Also, what is the "specialized
>> packaging" you referred to?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:32 PM, David Medinets
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>
>>> Does it make sense to put vendor-specific stuff under a contribs/vendors
>>> directory? Doing so would certainly indicate that we are vendor-agnostic.
>>> And give vendors an obvious place to contribute.
>>>