hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Rawson <ryano...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: DISCUSSION: Cut a hadoop-0.20.0-append release from the tip of branch-0.20-append branch?
Date Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:40:14 GMT
The append solution in 0.22 that you are referring to was supposed to
be out 13-15 months ago.  Pardon if I look for solutions that deploy 4
months ago (as the 0.20 append branch did).

Another 12-15 months of delay is not exactly helping HDFS either.

-ryan

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Jakob Homan <jghoman@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's difficult to support this proposal knowing how much time would be
> spent preparing an official release, continuing to support it and
> continuing to two support two separate implementations of append.  I
> believe that effort would be better spent getting out a kick-ass 22
> (or, barring that, a *really* kick-ass 23).
>
> The Promised Land that we say we're all trying to get to is regular,
> timely, feature-complete, tested, innovative but stable releases of
> new versions of Apache Hadoop.  Missing out any one of those criteria
> discovered will continue (and has continued) the current situation
> where quasi-official branches and outside distributions fill the void
> such a release should.  The effort to maintain this offical branch and
> fix the bugs that will be discovered could be better spent moving us
> closer to that goal.
>
> I'm certainly sympathetic to the difficult position our quagmire has
> placed HBase into.  However, the current proposal would hurt HDFS to
> help HBase. The best solution for that project, as well as for HDFS,
> is to get HDFS back to a healthy release cycle; not prolong or codify
> the current ad-hoc state of affairs.  Let's stop digging this hole.
> -jakob
>
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:33 AM, M. C. Srivas <mcsrivas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [ Sorry if this is be-laboring the obvious ]
>>
>> There are two append solutions floating around, and they are incompatible
>> with each other. Thus, the two "branches" will forever remain incompatible
>> with each other, regardless of how they are numbered (0.22,  0.23,  0.20.3,
>> e.t.c.)
>>
>> Unless both are merged into one branch, and a switch provided to  "use
>> HDFS-200 append" or "use 0.22 append", we have effectively split Hadoop into
>> two.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Owen O'Malley <omalley@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Features are not release version tags.  If there is a security bug
>>> > found then we would have to release a new version of the append
>>> > version, and a round of severe trout slapping would result.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Yeah, it isn't a perfect solution and it doesn't scale to a second tag, but
>>> the problem is that this is effectively a release branch between 0.20 and
>>> 0.21. Of course I agree that any critical bugs would need to be fixed in
>>> the
>>> append branch as well as the 0.20 and 0.21 branches.
>>>
>>> If you want to stick to pure numbers and we want to leave ourselves a way
>>> to
>>> bugfix the 0.20 branch without append, we'd could use a version string like
>>> 0.20.100, etc. Not pretty, but it does preserve the numeric ordering and
>>> suggest a version jump.
>>>
>>> If I remember right, there were also protocol changes in the append branch,
>>> which was another reason we didn't want to put it directly into the 0.20
>>> branch.
>>>
>>> -- Owen
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message