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 Thu, 25 Apr 2013 20:30:20 GMT
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?


>
> 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