accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>
Subject Re: Releasing 1.5
Date Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:42:58 GMT
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Keith Turner <keith@deenlo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
> 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?
> >
>
>
> I don't see a problem so long as you don't favor a vendor. You are correct
> that 'endorse' in the crude sense of writing text that says that it's
> wonderful would be bad. But providing tests that allow certification
> against one or more 'distros' seems fine, so long as it's clear that the
> tent is open for contributions of the same thing for other targets.
>

Ok that makes sense, its about whats contributed.  If we only have CDH, and
not MapR or Hortonworks, its because CDH was the only thing that was
contributed.   As long as we are receptive to contributions related to
other Hadoop derivatives, its all good.


> However, keep in mind that there's considerable discontent about the use of
> the term  'Hadoop distribution' by Cloudera and friends, so best not to
> step in that.
>
> In my view, you'd solicit contributions of test / certification harness
> material from all comers. I think it would be a problem to add dependencies
> to the standard build to them -- it should be an optional step.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On 4/25/13 3:57 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:46 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> 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 <josh.elser@gmail.com>
> > >>> 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 <vines@apache.org>
> > 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 <ctubbsii@apache.org
> >
> > >>>>>> 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
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Keith Turner <keith@deenlo.com>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:03 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>   Yes
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>   Ok, I vaguely remember discussion of this
on a ticket or in
> > >>>>>>>>> mailing
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> list.
> > >>>>>>> Do you know the details?  Is this caused by something
hadoop is
> > >>>>>>> doing,
> > >>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>> is it how we are using Hadoop?  Can we change something
in
> Accumulo
> > >>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> avoid this?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>  On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Keith Turner
<
> keith@deenlo.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>  wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>   On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 1:48 PM, John Vines <jvines@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>   Has anyone put any thought into how we're going
to release
> 1.5,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> considering
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>  the special cases needed for the various
hadoop releases? I'm
> > not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>  only
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>   talking about distributions, but also the
jars released to
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> central.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>   Does compiling against Hadoop 1 result
in Accumulo class
> > files
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>
> > >>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> not work w/ Hadoop 2?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>   --
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers
> > >>>>>>>>>>> ~John
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message