hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eli Collins <...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Shall we adopt the "Defining Hadoop" page
Date Wed, 15 Jun 2011 01:45:23 GMT
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Allen Wittenauer <aw@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Jun 14, 2011, at 5:48 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
>> In short, an Apache Hadoop release with a backport of PMC approved
>> code or critical security fix is not powered by Hadoop, it is Hadoop,
>> while a new product that contains or runs atop Hadoop is powered by
>> Hadoop.
>>
>> Reasonable?
>
>        I'd say: Security, yes.  Features, no.
>
>        The reason I say this is because there have been many, many, many posts in
the -user mailing lists where people are confused as to what versions have what features because
their local branch has a back ported fix.  [I think I run out of fingers if I count how many
times just the mapred.map.child.java.opts was said to be "in 20" prior to the 0.20.203 release...]
>
>        This also adds pressure to do timely releases. :)
>

I agree this is a problem, I don't think this is an effective means of
solving it.

Are we really going to go after all the web companies that patch in an
enhancement to their current Hadoop build and tell them to stop saying
that they are using Hadoop?  You've patched Hadoop many times, should
your employer not be able to say they use Hadoop?  I'm -1 on a
proposal that does this.

Thanks,
Eli

Mime
View raw message