hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stack <st...@duboce.net>
Subject Re: DISCUSSION: Cut a hadoop-0.20.0-append release from the tip of branch-0.20-append branch?
Date Wed, 29 Dec 2010 06:32:06 GMT

What you say seems sensible enough but its not what I want (smile).
My sense is that for HBase, unless the package we host at
hbase.apache.org is called hadoop-0.20.0-append -- so its clear its an
untainted bundle made from the tip of the append branch -- then we're
only going to confuse; we'll be spending our time quelling queries
about the "hbase version" of hadoop.

I'm going to pass on trying to offer an append release bundle off the
branch-0.20-append branch.  For the next HBase (imminent) release,
we'll just keep on with telling folks build their own hadoop from the
append branch or go get CDH3 (The HBase release after that will be
about getting us up on hadoop 0.22).

Thanks all,

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Chris Douglas <cdouglas@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Chris Douglas <cdouglas@apache.org> wrote:
>> Calling it other than Hadoop would only confuse the situation even
>> more; "Trust all your data to fooFS!".  It'd also reeks of HDFS 'fork'
>> (HBase is not yet up for taking on such a burden).
> Unless I'm missing something, it is a fork. It's a temporary, friendly
> fork, but it's what the HBase project has been using and supporting
> for months. It hasn't had a label assigned to it, but it's a product
> (a feature with a mostly-shared implementation across other forks, at
> any rate).
>> I liked my original reading of your suggestion Chris -- even if it was
>> perhaps not what you intended -- where HBase would host
>> hadoop-0.20-append.  Thats not on?
> Your original reading was what I intended. The obstacle to releasing a
> variant of Hadoop from the HBase project is the name. I'd be surprised
> if TLPs were permitted to release under another project's name, even
> if the other endorsed it. If that assumption is not a real constraint,
> then I agree that there's no point in calling it something else. -C

View raw message