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 16:40:19 GMT
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Owen O'Malley <omalley@apache.org> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2011, at 5:48 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
>> Wrt derivative works, it's not clear from the document, but I think we
>> should explicitly adopt the policy of HTTPD and Subversion that
>> backported patches from trunk and security fixes are permitted.
> Actually, the document is extremely clear that only Apache releases may be called Hadoop.
> There was a very long thread about why the rapidly expanding Hadoop-ecosystem is leading
to at lot of customer confusion about the different "versions" of Hadoop. We as the Hadoop
project don't have the resources or the necessary compatibility test suite to test compatibility
between the different sets of cherry picked patches. We also don't have time to ensure that
all of the 1,000's of patches applied to 0.20.2 in each of the many (10? 15?) different versions
have been committed to trunk. Futhermore, under the Apache license, a company Foo could claim
that it is a cherry pick version of Hadoop without releasing their source code that would
enable verification.
> In summary,
>  1. Hadoop is very successful.
>  2. There are many different commercial products that are trying to use the Hadoop name.
>  3. We can't check or enforce that the cherry pick versions are following the rules.
>  4. We don't have a TCK like Java does to validate new versions are compatible.
>  5. By far the most fair way to ensure compatibility and fairness between companies
is that only Apache Hadoop releases may be called Hadoop.
> That said, a package that includes a small number (< 3) of security patches that haven't
been released yet doesn't seem unreasonable.

I've spoken with ops teams at many companies,  I am not aware of
anyone who runs an official release (with just 2 security patches). By
this definition many of the most valuable contributors to Hadoop,
including Yahoo!, Cloudera, Facebook, etc are not using Hadoop.  Is
that really the message we want to send? We expect the PMC to enforce
this equally across all parties?

It's a fact of life that companies and ops teams that support Hadoop
need to patch the software before the PMC has time and/or will to vote
on new releases. This is why HTTP and Subversion allow this. Putting a
build of Hadoop that has 4 security patches applied into the same
category as a product that has entirely re-worked the code and not
gotten it checked into trunk does a major disservice to the people who
contribute to and invest in the project.


View raw message