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

Switch to Threaded View
HDFS >> mail # dev >> hdfs project separation

Copy link to this message
hdfs project separation
( this message is not intended for specific folks, by mistake, but for all the hdfs-dev list, deliberately;)

Hello Folks,

I do not want to scratch the already bleeding wounds, and want to resolve these issues amicably, without causing a big inter-vendor confrontation.

So, these are the facts, as I (and several others in the hadoop community) see this.

1. there was an attempt to separate different hadoop projects, such as common, hdfs, mapreduce.

2. that attempt was aborted because of several things. common ownership, i.e. committership being the biggest issue.

3. in the meanwhile, several important, release-worthy, hdfs improvements were committed to Hadoop. (Thats why I supported Konst's appeal for 0.22. And also incorporated into Hadoop products by the largest hadoop ecosystem contributor, and several others.)

4. All the apache hadoop bylaws were followed, to get these improvements into Hadoop project.

5. Yet, common project, which is not even a top-level project, since the awkward re-merge happened, got an invompatible wire-protocol change, which was accepted and promoted by a specific section, in spite of kicking and screaming of (what I think of) a representative of a large hadoop user community.

6. That, and such other changes, has created a big issue for a part of the community which has tested hdfs part of 2.x and has spent a lot of efforts to stabilize hdfs, since this was the major part of assault from proprietary storage systems, such as You-Know-Who.

I would like to raise this issue as an individual, regardless of my affiliation, so that, we can make hdfs worthy of its association with the top level ecosystem, without being closely associated with it.

What do the hdfs developers think?

- milind

Sent from my iPhone