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
Ah, make sense. It looks like having both version might be a mess... Shall we
stick with the plan of having Sqoop1 restored just in 0.6.1 then ?

On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 09:06PM, Sean Mackrory wrote:
> >> To start with I don't even understand what it means 'make version X a default'
>
> I think what they/we mean is which one gets to be called just "sqoop"
> in the directories and command names, and which one has its version as
> a suffix (e.g. "sqoop1", "sqoop2"). Alternatively they could both have
> the suffix. I don't feel that strongly any particular way, just
> clarifying what I think is meant.
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > To start with I don't even understand what it means 'make version X a
> > default'. All components including into BOM are equal, except for Hadoop that
> > is more equal than others ;)
> >
> > At any rate: bleeding edge mantra is just what we like to present Bigtop, it
> > isn't really a policy of the project. Besides, Bigtop 0.6.0 was used as a
> > stabilization of the stack based on Hadoop 2.0.x, namely 2.0.5
> >
> > Another alternative to having Sqoop 1.x returned is too quickly bake 0.6.1
> > (along with Bruno's original idea), but with a single change in its BOM, ie
> > Sqoop 1.x added into it.
> > The scope of the release would be really limited, e.g. just one JIRA, and we
> > should be able to get it out in a matter of a couple of days without
> > disrupting 0.7.0.  If this seems like a good way to go - let's separate these
> > two and keep pn 0.7.0 discussion.
> >
> > Thoughts,
> >   Cos
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 05:19PM, Mark Grover 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
> > > > >