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
Keith Turner 2013-04-25, 20:30
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I don't think there are any issues with having binary-compatible releases
> as it's the same source underneath.
> In other words, our source doesn't change whether we compile against CDH,
> HDP, Apache, etc. That makes me think that we should be fine in creating
> binary-only releases for the Hadoop offshoots from a licensing standpoint.
I suspect one thing we can not do is endorse any
particular commercial product thats based on Hadoop.  Would creating an
Apache Accumulo distribution targeted at Cloudera (and not MapR or
Hortonworks) be considered endorsing Cloudera?
> On 4/25/13 3:57 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:46 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>  Except we need to consider accessibility and the amount of pain we may be
>>> inflicting upon ourselves.
>>> CDH is used by a lot of people, so by keeping barriers in place to slow
>>> down trials by users is going to hurt us. And we're also going to be hurt
>>> by those users, and the ones running hadoop 2, because they're going to
>>> grab our package and start asking us why it's not working (if we're
>>> lucky,
>>> they may just give up on us entirely).
>>>  I agree w/ making things easy for users.  We should also make sure we
>> follow any Apache rules, if there are any.  Would a binary release of
>> Accumulo made by Apache for cloudera's version of Hadoop be ok?  Is it ok
>> to do this for Cloudera Hadoop and not Hortonworks or MapR hadoop?
>> Only creating binary release for Apache Hadoop versions and striving to
>> ensure our source builds against as many downstream versions as possible
>> is
>> one option.
>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>  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