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 22:39:07 GMT
How does stack volunteering his time to release an existing branch
divert resources?

Without an ASF release of 0.20-append I will keep having to recommend
an external vendor's release of Hadoop.


On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
<shv.hadoop@gmail.com> wrote:
> I also think building 0.20-append will be a major distraction from moving
> 0.22 forward with all the great new features, including the new append
> implementation, sitting on the bench because we are delaying the release.
> It seems to be beneficial for the entire community to focus on 0.22 rather
> than chasing both birds.
>
> I hear a concern that 0.22 will lack large scale testing as was the case
> with 0.21.
> I'd like to volunteer to put as many large scale resources, as I can grasp,
> into stabilizing of 0.22. Under Nigel's management of course.
> This should get us to production quality in 3-6 months rather than
> "another 12-15". I also hope it can go even faster/better if others
> could join the effort. I see > 100 companies claiming they are powered by
> Apache Hadoop.
>
> I also hope with this effort HBase will be able to start moving to the new
> append implementation in the next 2-3 months, which in turn will help 0.22
> HDFS
> rather than divert resources from it as it would have be with 0.20-append.
>
> Stack, will this plan will work for HBase survival?
>
> One other thought. Apache Hadoop community is not in control of external
> releases and distributions, but we should not fork our own releases by
> introducing
> competing apis. If we can keep the dev line relatively straight the external
> releases
> will follow.
>
> Thanks,
> --Konstantin
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Ryan Rawson <ryanobjc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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