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
I would agree. As I've said I really don't have a strong opinion on
which one should be the "default" or whether we should do separate
releases, but I also don't object to any of the proposals so far. I'm
happy to lend a hand if needed, having already packaged these two
side-by-side successfully before, but it's not very hard from a
technical standpoint.

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Mark Grover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks everyone for your feedback!
>
> I think we are moving towards a consensus where we should put sqoop2 as the
> only sqoop in Bigtop 0.7 BOM. We, as a community, are very open to adding
> Sqoop1 back in Bigtop (0.6.1 or 0.7.0, whatever the decision is). We will
> just have to ensure (and it shouldn't be too hard to do so) that there are
> no namespace/command name conflicts between sqoop1 and the sqoop already
> present in Bigtop (sqoop2). BIGTOP-1016 seems to be a good starting place
> for that.
>
> Do folks agree with the above?
>
> Mark
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> No, I meant stability of the framework itself: packaging, iTest, etc.
>> Perhaps
>> stability is too overloaded... robustness, perhaps?
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 10:57AM, Bruno Mahe wrote:
>> > Bigtop as a framework? You mean stable api of its projects?
>> >
>> > Sent from my HTC EVO 4G LTE exclusively from Sprint
>> >
>> > ----- Reply message -----
>> > From: "Konstantin Boudnik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Cc: "Sean Mackrory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Subject: [DISCUSS] BOM for release 0.7.0 of Bigtop
>> > Date: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 10:40
>> >
>> >
>> > Bruno,
>> >
>> > just to clarify my stance of 'stability': it is more about stability of
>> the
>> > Bigtop as a framework than a stability of the stack.
>> >
>> > I am not sure we have resources to do maintenance releases at this
>> point. May
>> > be it is just me.
>> >
>> > Cos
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 10:10AM, Bruno MahИ wrote:
>> > > On 07/09/2013 09:47 AM, Sean Mackrory wrote:
>> > >> Without wanting to detract from the spirit of focussing on system
>> > >> stability, I'd like to suggest a few changes I think it's time we at
>> least
>> > >> discuss seriously:
>> > >>
>> > >> JDKs: I've seen a lot of people ask about JDK 7. Perhaps time to add
>> > >> support for Oracle JDK 7? It's working pretty well in my experience,
>> and
>> > >> although it's less tested upstream, the only JDK we officially
>> support is
>> > >> officially EOL, so we're not exactly in a good position now IMO.
>> > >>
>> > >> Debian 7 has also been out for a while, and I think we should do at
>> least
>> > >> one release on it. It's likely very little work but I think there's
>> value
>> > >> in certifying the stack will work well there. (On the topic of OS's -
>> are
>> > >> we specifically talking SP3 of SLES 11?). I don't feel strongly on
>> this,
>> > >> but I'm just curious if there's a reason you're suggesting staying
>> with
>> > >> 12.10 and not 13.04 - other than wanting less change in this release?
>> > >> Again, I hardly have an opinion on that one.
>> > >>
>> > >> Other components that have recently had releases that I don't
>> consider to
>> > >> impact the
>> > >> - Hue 2.4.0
>> > >> - Whirr 0.8.2
>> > >> - Flume 1.4.0
>> > >>
>> > >> There's also been a ticket to package Avro for a long time and I'd
>> like to
>> > >> get to that soon. Perhaps Parquet as well? Although like Phoenix and
>> > >> DataFu, I would suggest doing just the libraries for now, not all the
>> CLI
>> > >> tools.
>> > >>
>> > >> Again - I don't mean to take away from the focus on stability, but I
>> also
>> > >> don't think we shouldn't stretch to stay up to date either.
>> > >>
>> > >> +1 to everything else as suggested, however.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > >>> Would you be willing to consider Phoenix, only BIGTOP-993?
>> Installing the
>> > >>> package produced by 993 only drops a library for HBase into