accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Vines <vi...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Releasing 1.5
Date Tue, 07 May 2013 15:28:54 GMT
I am more than content with that assessment


On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> I would love to deploy additional artifacts using classifiers for
> hadoop2. We may be able to support that for the jar artifacts in
> Maven, with some minor profile tweaks to the POM. (Apache
> infrastructure actually allows you to deploy many artifacts to a
> staging repo, before closing that staging repo... so it's not
> impossible to stage all the hadoop1 stuff, then stage some additional
> stuff). I'll try that for RC2 (is there already a ticket open for
> this?). However, the assemble module already uses classifiers because
> multiple DEBs/RPMs are built in a single module (not following Maven
> conventions), so it's going to take some additional project
> refactoring in 1.6 before we could put out different
> RPMs/DEBs/tarballs for hadoop2. I'm going to go out on a limb here and
> say that the Maven artifacts for hadoop2 would be good enough for 1.5.
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:10 AM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
> > I would also like to point out that hbase is putting out separate
> releases
> > for hadoop1 and hadoop2 (
> > http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/hbase/hbase-0.95.0). They also have
> > support for both via maven, however they implemented a compatibility
> module
> > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6405) which brings the
> schism
> > down to a single jar that needs to be interchanged. That may be something
> > we want to consider for 1.6.
> >
> > The reason that I care about this is I'm working on things on top of
> > Accumulo, but against multiple versions of hadoop. I want to be able to
> > easily able to build against different versions of Accumulo 1.5 without
> > have to kill my local repo, reinstall accumulo built against my target
> > version of hadoop, etc. etc. It would be SOOOO much more convenient to
> just
> > switch my accumulo version from 1.5 to 1.5-hadoop2 and be done with it.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:32 AM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I've always been an advocate of sticking to vanilla compatibility, but
> >> maintaining ability to be compatible with other versions. Hadoop 2ish
> >> things are the first case where we are beginning to see broken run-time
> >> compatibility due to some API changes. While the fragmented state of
> hadoop
> >> creates a larger set of jars, even just hadoop 1 vs. hadoop2 is enough
> to
> >> break things. I think priority number 1 should be compile time
> >> compatibility with everything, followed by attempts for full runtime
> >> compatibility. Obviously this can't happen, but it can be achieved by
> >> identical source but split compiled resources, and I think that may be
> >> something we have to do. If we're putting in the legwork to know how to
> >> successfully run against hadoop_variant_8271, we may as well provide a
> >> compiled unit for it as well.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/ACCUMULO-837<
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-837>,
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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 <
> >>>> billie.rinaldi@gmail.com>**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
> >>>>> <david.medinets@gmail.com>**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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>
>

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