accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <>
Subject Re: Releasing 1.5
Date Tue, 30 Apr 2013 04:01:47 GMT
Funny enough, I gothit by these shenanigans last night when I was trying 
to run trunk against CDH3 locally. After working through jars that were 
marked asprovidedand weren't, and then running into, I threw in the towel 
and called it a night.

I think one thing we can all agree upon is that the "fragmented" state 
of Hadoop distributions is a pain to work around; however, we do have a 
very broad coverage across that variance just on our committer list. 
Considering Benson's comments on the subject of "supporting" non-Apache 
Hadoop variants, I would think that it's in our best interest to provide 
some level of warm-fuzzy in terms of support. I'm worried about making 
people chase their tails just to get Accumulo up and running on their 
flavor of choice.

As far as what we distribute, I'm still of the mindset that support for 
building Accumulo against other versions of Hadoop can be satisfied by 
instructions on how to do so. Thus, I would say that Accumulo's default 
dependency should continue to track Apache Hadoop's stable as it 
currently does (maybe revisiting classifiers for 1.6?). I would say we 
can revisit the subject of the src jars we publish when/if a flavor 
breaks Accumulo's compilation.


On 4/26/2013 4:35 PM, John Vines wrote:
> I had issues running a hadoop2 compiled version of accumulo against CDH4, I
> can't remember the specifics of it though.
> When I said specialized packaging, I was thinking of a naming convention to
> distinguish hadoop1 vs. hadoop2 ( vs. vendor-specific hadoop) compiled jars.
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Billie Rinaldi <>wrote:
>> I'm not sure we are talking about actual vendor-specific code.  We are
>> deciding whether or not to create additional release tarballs that have
>> been compiled against various vendors' Hadoop-compatible file systems.
>> Assuming that we determine there is nothing prohibiting us from doing this,
>> I think it would simply be up to the release manager (i.e. anyone who
>> assembles a release and calls a vote for it).  If someone cares enough
>> about a particular distribution to build and create an extra tarball, they
>> can.  However, I don't think this is common for Apache projects --
>> additional packaging is usually left to supporting companies.  I haven't
>> even noticed any releases yet that come in Hadoop 1 and Hadoop 2 flavors.
>> I haven't heard (until now) that Accumulo compiled against an appropriate
>> version of Apache Hadoop will not work with CDH, but John says that's the
>> case.  John, have you tried this?  Also, what is the "specialized
>> packaging" you referred to?
>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:32 PM, David Medinets
>> <>wrote:
>>> Does it make sense to put vendor-specific stuff under a contribs/vendors
>>> directory? Doing so would certainly indicate that we are vendor-agnostic.
>>> And give vendors an obvious place to contribute.

View raw message