Mailing-List: contact general-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@hadoop.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Move project split down a level
From: Eric Baldeschwieler <eric14@yahoo-inc.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimOpMVAZa+4ues=9+rkv=FNHmpTeKr-Njvyvuqn@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:33:34 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <8AA8E042-F3FA-4382-B8AF-1FE272F8A880@yahoo-inc.com>
References: <D1B0544A-E594-4530-BAEA-46EFFE97676A@mac.com>
 <AANLkTiknWzZYo0yc3X8sfuzScDF_yREwSaBi9uXsrJi5@mail.gmail.com>
 <439416.18126.qm@web56207.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
 <15CB20F8-469A-457D-BFE2-084785FB9E18@mac.com>
 <113546.32737.qm@web56204.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
 <D02FBCAB-DE76-408D-A137-AA31F1CEAAF1@mac.com>
 <E51D5DEA-73EC-491C-9956-A29342DB9CE5@yahoo-inc.com>
 <AANLkTimOpMVAZa+4ues=9+rkv=FNHmpTeKr-Njvyvuqn@mail.gmail.com>
To: "general@hadoop.apache.org" <general@hadoop.apache.org>

Nigel proposes that in this release (as in previous releases), =
everything should be packaged together.

Our in house experience at yahoo is that this makes a lot of sense.  It =
is how we find it most effective to operate.  The project split has =
introduced a lot of complexity with no return.

Do you see any advantage to the status quo, versus nigel's proposal?

Thanks!  And sorry for any ambiguity.

E14


On Jan 17, 2011, at 9:54 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 21:40, Eric Baldeschwieler =
<eric14@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> On Jan 17, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Nigel Daley wrote:
>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On Jan 14, 2011, at 11:53 AM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze wrote:
>>>>=20
>> ...
>>>> Why do we want to enforce the releases as a unit, given that the =
long term
>>>> target is to release these 3 projects independently?
>>>=20
>>> Because that long term view is currently a fantasy with no real end =
in sight.
>>=20
>> ** +1 to that.  We release as a unit, branch as a unit, test as a =
unit, deploy as a unit.  I've seen no actual gain from the project =
split, just complexity.
>=20
> Am I missing something in the latest development of Hadoop, Eric? What
> do you mean by 'we... test as a unit'? Is it like we have test
> artifacts version'd against Hadoop release proper? Or you are trying
> to say something else? It isn't very clear, sorry...
>=20
> Cos
>=20
>=20
>>> Nige
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Nigel Daley <ndaley@mac.com>
>>>> To: general@hadoop.apache.org
>>>> Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 11:21:25 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Move project split down a level
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> On Jan 14, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>> Hi Nigel,
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> As I look more at the impact of the common/MR/HDFS project split =
on what
>>>>>> and how we release Hadoop, I feel like the split needs an =
adjustment.  Many
>>>>>> folks I've talked to agree that the project split has caused us a =
splitting
>>>>>> headache.  I think 1 relatively small change could alleviate some =
of that.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Could you elaborate your idea on how the proposed changes would =
help?  What the
>>>>>=20
>>>>> problems are being addressed?  It is not clear to me.
>>>>=20
>>>> Critical in my mind was my statement: "We're a long way from =
releasing these 3
>>>> projects independently.  Given that, they should be branched and =
released as a
>>>> unit."  This can not be enforced given the current svn layout. =
Other's can weigh
>>>> in with additional thoughts.
>>>>=20
>>>>> You are right that the change is small but the impact is huge.  We =
should first
>>>>>=20
>>>>> understand what we are getting from the changes before doing it.
>>>>=20
>>>> What do you see as the huge impact?
>>>>=20
>>>> Nige
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20