accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: 1.7 release timeline
Date Wed, 08 Oct 2014 23:54:29 GMT
I don't think it's about aggression... it's about progress. We can continue
to support a version with bugfixes that does work on Hadoop 1 for some
time. If it's likely to cause problems in the bleeding edge, though... we
can drop it there. In any case, I'm fine with doing this in 2.0.0, instead,
if it makes it easier to leave a support window in 1.x for Hadoop 1.


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

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sean Busbey wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Christopher<ctubbsii@apache.org>  wrote:
>>
>>  On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Sean Busbey<busbey@cloudera.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Forgot one:
>>>>>
>>>>> *Drop Hadoop 1 support*
>>>>>    - We would no longer care about maintaining Hadoop 1 APIs (get rid
>>>>> of
>>>>> crappy reflection)
>>>>>    - 2.2.0 (Hadoop 2 "stable") came out just under 1 year ago
>>>>>    - Can be done for 1.7 or reconsidered for 2.0
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Do we already know if focusing on just Hadoop 2.2.0+ support will
>>>> result
>>>>
>>> in
>>>
>>>> any API impact?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  I can't imagine it will impact our client API much, if any, but it'll
>>> certainly help simplify and fix bugs in our use of Hadoop (when they
>>> appear), and may result in fewer compatibility issues in MapReduce and
>>> elsewhere (dynamic class loading, reflection workarounds). It should also
>>> allow us to provide some guarantees in durability-related features
>>> (because
>>> we'll know they exist). It should also help simplify documentation and
>>> example configs, as well as reduce testing burdens.
>>>
>>> +1 to dropping Hadoop<2.2.0 in 1.7.0.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> If it doesn't impact API or usage I'd also be +1. If it ends up leaking
>> out
>> somewhere, I'd want to take the opportunity of 1.7.0 to flag deprecations
>> so the transition can be made less severe (and remove in 2.0).
>>
>> Frankly, given the general expectations on durability we formed in 1.4 I'd
>> say it's dangerous for people to be running 1.5+ on Hadoop 1.
>>
>>
> Yeah, that's definitely what has to be weighed. Are we so aggressive to
> prevent users from even running on Hadoop 1 because it is inherently
> missing some of the sync mechanics needed to ensure no data loss regardless
> of redundant power?
>
> We warn users when they don't have the necessary options set at the HDFS
> level to properly sync, but we don't keep them from running like that.
>
> The more I think about it, I think I'd be more in favor of continuing to
> strongly encourage users to adopt Hadoop 2 and revisit dropping Hadoop 1
> for 2.0.0.
>

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