hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Imran M Yousuf <imyou...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] HBase as TLP
Date Fri, 09 Apr 2010 04:07:13 GMT

I feel the same. From following HBase seeing its releases depending
directly on Hadoop release gets me thinking...

Best regards,


On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Tom White <tom@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Eclipse does big bang releases of multiple components, but I believe
> it requires a huge amount of coordination and planning. Instead, I
> think the direction Hadoop should move in is to stabilize and clearly
> demarcate its core filesystem and MapReduce interfaces, so that
> projects like HBase, Pig, and Hive can run against multiple versions
> of core. Their release cycles are already largely decoupled from core,
> so the question about whether they become TLPs is more to do with
> project governance than with release coordination.
> Cheers,
> Tom
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Jay Booth <jaybooth@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not sure exactly what I meant by "1.0 of what", "Hadoop" I guess, I was
>> trying to address the concerns raised, which I share -- Alan's concern is
>> that if the projects are completely separate from each other, that might
>> decrease visibility as to the demands they're placing on each other when
>> integrated, and St.Ack mentioned the frankenstein factor which I think we've
>> all felt some pain from, and which may get worse after the project split.
>> What's the standard way to deploy the three, even?  Is there one?
>> If the PMCs jointly maintained some sort of 'stable integrated build' which
>> took in new releases from the TLPs as they were released after a soak
>> period, it could provide a common touchstone that bugs could be tested
>> against and cross-component patches delivered against, potentially
>> increasing visibility of cross-component issues while providing a less
>> cobbled-together system to administrate.  On the other side, though, if
>> executed wrong, you'd be creating a committee of committees and possibly
>> undoing some of the benefits of going TLP in the first place, especially if
>> politics heat up over what goes into the 'standard' build.  I think it could
>> be viable though.
>> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Arun C Murthy <acm@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 8, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Jay Booth wrote:
>>>  What if the projects were:
>>>> A)  split out to TLPs because they do seem to have reached that level of
>>>> individual community
>>>> but,
>>>> B)  The projects could somehow jointly put out an integrated build
>>>> containing the above projects and let users run whatever they want out of
>>>> it?
>>>> That would require a lot of coordination but would make a heck of a 1.0
>>>> release,
>>> 1.0 release of what?
>>> Arun

Imran M Yousuf
Entrepreneur & Software Engineer
Smart IT Engineering
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Email: imran@smartitengineering.com
Blog: http://imyousuf-tech.blogs.smartitengineering.com/
Mobile: +880-1711402557

View raw message