hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom White <tom.e.wh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Plans for the 0.22 Release
Date Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:17:30 GMT
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
<shv.hadoop@gmail.com> wrote:
> Owen, Doug, Tom
> Could you please formulate and reply to this email separately
>     what would be an *ACCEPTABLE *resolution of
>     HADOOP-6685 for *YOU *to move *0.22* forward.
> Just trying to get something to work with to get us beyond the stagnation
> point.
> It could be "I want this patch in/out as is, final answer". Then we are
> stuck.
> But at least we will know there is no resolution to hope for anymore.
> And we have to find other ways based on that fact.
> It could be a zero-option plan - remove dependencies both for Avro and
> ProtocolBuffers out into libraries, similar to schedulers.
> Or something else.
> Let's see if there is any common ground. If there is
> we can further talk about implementation and in the mean time declare
> the 0.22 freeze contingent on the completion of H-6685.

I don't personally see HADOOP-6685 as a blocker for a 0.22 release,
since there is a lot of value in there already that has not been
released yet, such as security. However, to get HADOOP-6685 resolved,
from my point of view the main thing to sort out are the modularity
concerns that I and others have raised, so that serializations are
pluggable and don't add potentially incompatible libraries onto the
user's classpath.


> Thanks,
> --Konstantin
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Ian Holsman <hadoop@holsman.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 17, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>> >> Everyone who has discussed this patch has said it isn't critical to
>> hadoop, and It's holding up everything else 0.22 is going to bring.
>> >
>> > I disagree that it isn't critical to Hadoop, but I'm not holding up 0.22.
>> I'm just not volunteering to spend my time working on it, if it doesn't have
>> the features that I think it needs.
>> >
>> > -- Owen
>> >
>> That's a fair point.. and this is a volunteer effort.
>> Do we have anybody else who is willing to be the release manager for 22
>> with 6685?

View raw message