Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGHyZ6K9Gk4Zfg=5PU0kQfKBuCvTg1YTQVSHrEXH1NaOeAXLmg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAGHyZ6JvcjXQNn0SZ-FCG27n86wBA4_MtUxvygnaL+SYe4Yf+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJRvFdqwnTWyjsmX9LP-BzS0gom8=-bYWWzMgvawcGDESMM1jA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALte62yW-zd8rkSF17YQ+4m3VR3sRE=96Xt-stkrNT+kdvVOig@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF1jEfB8gt+kSqXZfk=N2gp9xwiav7BOZRsVWacSnuVn1f4dmA@mail.gmail.com>
	<524568316.7669140.1381839400510.JavaMail.root@comcast.net>
	<CAGHyZ6KQ9QifgDf1O6LUry=VzGid62jri05WOLOcHgsZXs34+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGHyZ6+BbT_Vz6NRKKHM2-xhMr-HoCNc8n2YzA0M=4fPSOgH0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGHyZ6JdrPuBh_nE14Wi2pbCzwoC2YxB2D2pj=BmtSWqbRW7mg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGHyZ6K9Gk4Zfg=5PU0kQfKBuCvTg1YTQVSHrEXH1NaOeAXLmg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:27:46 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAL5zq9Zsxq39W9VSFJvahcCd+B6kT2d08jXacZxbT3JY5Ycquw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch
From: Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
To: Accumulo Dev List <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

The main thing is that I would not want to see an ACCUMULO-1790
*without* ACCUMULO-1795. Having 1792 alone would be insufficient for
me.

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@clouderagovt.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:29 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:16 AM, <dlmarion@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just to be clear, we are talking about adding profile support to the
>>>>> pom's for Hadoop 2.2.0 for a 1.4.5 and 1.5.1 release, correct? We are not
>>>>> talking about changing the default build profile for these branches are we?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> for 1.4.5-SNAPSHOT I am only talking about adding support Hadoop 2.2.0.
>>>> I am not suggesting we change the default from building against Hadoop
>>>> 0.23.203.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I mean 0.20.203.0. Ugh, Hadoop versions.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Okay, barring additional suggestions, tomorrow afternoon I'll break things
>> down into an umbrella and 3 sub tasks:
>>
>> 1) addition of hadoop 2 support
>>
>>  - to include backports of commits
>>  - to include making the target hadoop 2 version 2.2.0
>>  - to include test changes that flex hadoop 2 features like fail over
>>
>> 2) ensuring compatibility for 0.20.203
>>
>> - presuming some subset of the commits in 1) will break it since 0.20
>> support was left behind in 1.5
>>
>> 3) doc / packaging updates
>>
>> - the issue of binary releases per distro
>> - doc patch for what version(s) the release tests are expected to run
>> against
>>
>> Once work is put against those tickets, I'd expect things to go into a
>> branch based on the umbrella ticket until such time as the complete work
>> can pass the test suite that we'll use at the next release. Then it can get
>> rebased onto the 1.4.x dev branch.
>>
>> --
>> Sean
>>
>
> Based on recent feedback on ACCUMULO-1792 and ACCUMULO-1795, I want to
> resurrect this thread to make sure everyone's concerns are addressed.
>
> For context, here's a link to the start of the last thread:
>
> http://bit.ly/1aPqKuH
>
> From ACCUMULO-1792, ctubbsii:
>
>> I'd be reluctant to support any Hadoop 2.x support in the 1.4 release
> line that breaks compatibility with 0.20. I don't think breaking 0.20
>> and then possibly fixing it again as a second step is acceptable (because
> that subsequent work may not ever be done, and I don't think
>> we should break the compatibility contract that we've established with
> 1.4.0).
>
> Chris, I believe keeping all of the work in a branch under the umbrella
> jira of ACCUMULO-1790 will ensure that we don't end up with a 1.4 release
> that doesn't have proper support for 0.20.203.
>
> Is there something beyond making sure the branch passes a full set of
> release tests on 0.20.203 that you'd like to see? In the event that the
> branch only ever contains the work for adding Hadoop 2, it's a simple
> matter to abandon without rolling into the 1.4 development line.
>
> From ACCUMULO-1795, bills (and +1ed by elserj and ctubbsii):
>
>> I'm very uncomfortable with risking breaking continuity in such an old
> release, and I don't think managing two lines of 1.4 releases is
>> worth the effort. Though we have no official EOL policy, 1.3 was
> practically dead in the water once 1.4 was around, and I hope we start
>> encouraging more adoption of 1.5 (and soon 1.6) versus continually
> propping up 1.4.
>
> I'd love to get people to move off of 1.4. However, I think adding Hadoop 2
> support to 1.4 encourages this more than leaving it out.
>
> Accumulo 1.5.x places a higher burden on HDFS than 1.4 did, and I'm not
> surprised people find relying on 0.20 for the 1.5 WAL intimidating.
> Upgrading both HDFS and Accumulo across major versions at once is asking
> them to take on a bunch of risk. By adding in Hadoop 2 support to 1.4 we
> allow them to break the risk up into steps: they can upgrade HDFS versions
> first, get comfortable, then upgrade Accumulo to 1.5.
>
> I think the existing tickets under the umbrella of ACCUMULO-1790 should
> ensure that we end up with a single 1.4 line that can work with either the
> existing 0.20.203.0 claimed in releases or against 2.2.0.
>
> Bill (or Josh or Chris), is there stronger language you'd like to see
> around docs / packaging (area #3 in the original plan and currently
> ACCUMULO-1796)? Maybe expressly only doing a binary convenience package for
> 0.20.203.0? Are you looking for something beyond a full release suite to
> ensure 1.4 is still maintaining compatibility on Hadoop 0.20.203?
>
>
> -Sean