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

Switch to Plain View
Hadoop, mail # general - [VOTE] Shall we adopt the "Defining Hadoop" page


+
Owen OMalley 2011-06-14, 22:56
+
Allen Wittenauer 2011-06-14, 23:35
+
Steve Loughran 2011-06-15, 09:58
+
Ian Holsman 2011-06-14, 23:38
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2011-06-15, 00:16
+
Eli Collins 2011-06-15, 00:48
+
Allen Wittenauer 2011-06-15, 01:15
+
Eli Collins 2011-06-15, 01:45
+
Allen Wittenauer 2011-06-15, 02:46
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2011-06-15, 02:51
+
Steve Loughran 2011-06-15, 09:52
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2011-06-15, 15:58
+
Steve Loughran 2011-06-17, 11:01
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2011-06-17, 18:17
+
Steve Loughran 2011-06-20, 12:43
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2011-06-17, 18:12
+
Eli Collins 2011-06-15, 16:23
+
Steve Loughran 2011-06-15, 16:44
+
Eli Collins 2011-06-15, 16:57
+
Rottinghuis, Joep 2011-06-16, 04:24
+
Owen OMalley 2011-06-16, 14:48
+
Eli Collins 2011-06-16, 15:31
+
Steve Loughran 2011-06-15, 09:49
+
Owen OMalley 2011-06-15, 02:45
+
Eli Collins 2011-06-15, 16:40
+
Matthew Foley 2011-06-15, 17:44
+
Matthew Foley 2011-06-15, 18:00
+
Eli Collins 2011-06-16, 01:02
+
Matthew Foley 2011-06-16, 01:17
+
Craig L Russell 2011-06-16, 02:19
+
Ian Holsman 2011-06-16, 02:52
+
Todd Lipcon 2011-06-16, 04:30
+
Ian Holsman 2011-06-16, 04:47
+
Eric Sammer 2011-06-16, 06:35
+
Steve Loughran 2011-06-16, 11:46
+
Owen OMalley 2011-06-16, 15:02
+
Eli Collins 2011-06-16, 15:41
+
Matthew Foley 2011-06-16, 17:17
+
Eli Collins 2011-06-16, 16:05
+
Matthew Foley 2011-06-16, 17:38
+
Eli Collins 2011-06-16, 18:11
+
Eric Baldeschwieler 2011-06-17, 00:35
+
Lawrence Rosen 2011-06-16, 17:27
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] Shall we adopt the "Defining Hadoop" page
Ted Dunning 2011-06-15, 18:13
+1 to what Eli says.  If nobody is running official Hadoop according to this
definition, but everybody thinks that they are running hadoop, then this
definition is a bit out of whack.  The source of the dissonance is related
to the fact that release just don't happen often enough in Hadoop.

In addition, I think that the limitations on usage are too strict.  For
instance, if "QuickBooks for Windows" [1] doesn't cause Microsoft to sue
Intuit, then "Joe's Foo for Apache Hadoop" really shouldn't cause any more
grief.

So I would give a (non-binding) -1 to the policy as stated.

[1]
http://quickbooks.intuit.com/product/accounting_software/windows_financial_management_software.jsp

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Owen O'Malley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 14, 2011, at 5:48 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
> >
> >> Wrt derivative works, it's not clear from the document, but I think we
> >> should explicitly adopt the policy of HTTPD and Subversion that
> >> backported patches from trunk and security fixes are permitted.
> >
> > Actually, the document is extremely clear that only Apache releases may
> be called Hadoop.
> >
> > There was a very long thread about why the rapidly expanding
> Hadoop-ecosystem is leading to at lot of customer confusion about the
> different "versions" of Hadoop. We as the Hadoop project don't have the
> resources or the necessary compatibility test suite to test compatibility
> between the different sets of cherry picked patches. We also don't have time
> to ensure that all of the 1,000's of patches applied to 0.20.2 in each of
> the many (10? 15?) different versions have been committed to trunk.
> Futhermore, under the Apache license, a company Foo could claim that it is a
> cherry pick version of Hadoop without releasing their source code that would
> enable verification.
> >
> > In summary,
> >  1. Hadoop is very successful.
> >  2. There are many different commercial products that are trying to use
> the Hadoop name.
> >  3. We can't check or enforce that the cherry pick versions are following
> the rules.
> >  4. We don't have a TCK like Java does to validate new versions are
> compatible.
> >  5. By far the most fair way to ensure compatibility and fairness between
> companies is that only Apache Hadoop releases may be called Hadoop.
> >
> > That said, a package that includes a small number (< 3) of security
> patches that haven't been released yet doesn't seem unreasonable.
> >
>
> I've spoken with ops teams at many companies,  I am not aware of
> anyone who runs an official release (with just 2 security patches). By
> this definition many of the most valuable contributors to Hadoop,
> including Yahoo!, Cloudera, Facebook, etc are not using Hadoop.  Is
> that really the message we want to send? We expect the PMC to enforce
> this equally across all parties?
>
> It's a fact of life that companies and ops teams that support Hadoop
> need to patch the software before the PMC has time and/or will to vote
> on new releases. This is why HTTP and Subversion allow this. Putting a
> build of Hadoop that has 4 security patches applied into the same
> category as a product that has entirely re-worked the code and not
> gotten it checked into trunk does a major disservice to the people who
> contribute to and invest in the project.
>
> Thanks,
> Eli
>
+
Arun C Murthy 2011-06-15, 18:37
+
Eli Collins 2011-06-15, 22:25
+
Chris Douglas 2011-06-15, 22:42
+
Eli Collins 2011-06-15, 23:11
+
Eli Collins 2011-06-15, 01:15
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2011-06-15, 02:32
+
Chris Douglas 2011-06-15, 02:16
+
Doug Cutting 2011-06-16, 08:44
+
Shane Curcuru 2011-06-18, 14:45
+
Owen OMalley 2011-06-24, 08:26
+
Doug Cutting 2011-06-24, 13:43
+
Owen OMalley 2011-06-24, 17:07
+
Doug Cutting 2011-06-25, 05:08
+
Roy T. Fielding 2011-06-26, 19:11
+
Eric Baldeschwieler 2011-06-22, 15:41