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

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


+
John Vines 2013-04-25, 17:48
+
Keith Turner 2013-04-25, 17:56
+
John Vines 2013-04-25, 18:03
+
Keith Turner 2013-04-25, 18:09
+
Christopher 2013-04-25, 18:32
+
John Vines 2013-04-25, 18:54
+
Keith Turner 2013-04-25, 19:32
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Releasing 1.5
Josh Elser 2013-04-25, 19:37
I agree that we should be prioritizing compatibility with Apache Hadoop
in our official releases.

I believe documenting some procedures to build against every other 3rd
party version is acceptable/sufficient since we have the sources out
there too. I'm also using the word "documenting" very loosely -- a page
on our site, a README with Maven commands, or even just in an email on
this list (indexed by search engines).

On 4/25/13 3:32 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:54 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> What about CDH3U5+ and CDH4? They also require some specialized packaging
>> as well.
>>
> Maybe only Apache Hadoop should be supported by Apache Accumulo?   Cloudera
> could package a downstream version of Accumulo that works w/ their
> downstream version of Hadoop if they wanted.
>
>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> So, I have a process in place for releasing the tarballs, rpms, debs,
>>> jars, PDFs, etc. using the maven-release-plugin, that signs and seals
>>> everything and deploys to the staging repository for voting. I'm still
>>> polishing it before I commit it.
>>>
>>> However, I've not figured out the best way to generate and release the
>>> hadoop2 variants. They should be released with a classifier to
>>> indicate they are for hadoop2, if they are released, but our build
>>> isn't exactly set up to produce two artifacts per module, and neither
>>> are our scripts capable of dealing with artifacts with classifiers in
>>> them.
>>>
>>> My opinion is that we should release for Hadoop 1.0, but support
>>> building from source against 2.0. Since 2.0 is still beta, this seems
>>> acceptable to me, and we can try to do better support for packaging
>>> for 2.0 in Accumulo 1.6.0, with tickets such as ACCUMULO-210 and the
>>> like.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:03 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes
>>>>>
>>>> Ok, I vaguely remember discussion of this on a ticket or in mailing
>> list.
>>>> Do you know the details?  Is this caused by something hadoop is doing,
>> or
>>>> is it how we are using Hadoop?  Can we change something in Accumulo to
>>>> avoid this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 1:48 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Has anyone put any thought into how we're going to release 1.5,
>>>>>> considering
>>>>>>> the special cases needed for the various hadoop releases? I'm not
>>> only
>>>>>>> talking about distributions, but also the jars released to
>> central.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does compiling against Hadoop 1 result in Accumulo class files that
>>> will
>>>>>> not work w/ Hadoop 2?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> ~John
>>>>>>>
+
John Vines 2013-04-25, 19:46
+
Keith Turner 2013-04-25, 19:57
+
Josh Elser 2013-04-25, 20:06
+
Keith Turner 2013-04-25, 20:30
+
Benson Margulies 2013-04-25, 20:41
+
Keith Turner 2013-04-26, 12:42
+
David Medinets 2013-04-26, 19:32
+
Billie Rinaldi 2013-04-26, 20:19
+
John Vines 2013-04-26, 20:35
+
Billie Rinaldi 2013-04-26, 21:47
+
Christopher 2013-04-26, 23:24
+
Josh Elser 2013-04-30, 04:01
+
John Vines 2013-04-30, 04:32
+
John Vines 2013-05-07, 15:10
+
Christopher 2013-05-07, 15:23
+
John Vines 2013-05-07, 15:28
+
David Medinets 2013-05-07, 16:38
+
Christopher 2013-04-25, 19:11