hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jay Booth <jaybo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] HBase as TLP
Date Fri, 09 Apr 2010 06:09:54 GMT
Alright, I totally agree.  Thanks for putting it that way.

-Jay

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Imran M Yousuf <imyousuf@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> I feel the same. From following HBase seeing its releases depending
> directly on Hadoop release gets me thinking...
>
> Best regards,
>
> Imran
>
> 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
>

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