hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Hadoop 1.0?
Date Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:46:20 GMT
A little wider perspective on where the renaming takes us and why it
is happening. My opinion.

Last year around this same time the Hadoop project was on the verge of
splitting.
We had three "commercial" versions of Hadoop competing to be the
"real" Hadoop, while the officially released Apache version was
outdated.
ASF did [amazingly] good job fencing off the claims for external
ownership of the Hadoop name, which effectively stopped the split the
way it was evolving. The danger of the External Project Split has
passed: now the others can call their stuff XYZ-DH7 and be done with
it.

This fall a danger of Internal Project Split has emerged, because
three versions were brewing independently. I call it a danger because
more versions of Hadoop means splitting and spreading resources of the
community including the  (rapidly growing) software stack above. It
also means stronger story for competing technologies. Which could be
good, or bad, or both.

The question is why does the project fall into Splitting danger every fall.
My answer is it's the "Forever-20" syndrome.
In the last several years there was always a "reason" to continue with
0.20. Mostly because businesses need to commit to a version for the
next year in fall. This is irrelevant to an open source project
development and contradicts its natural straight forward motion.

As many of you, last week I have been at Hadoop World and ApacheCon
and saw a lot (I mean thousands)
of people, enthusiastic about the technology, but majorly confused
about the versions.
My concern is that the rename of 0.20.205 to 1.0 means the community
will be stuck with it even longer,
leading to the "Occupy Hadoop" movement camping in the Apache Extras park.
I would have expected the RM of 0.23 advocating to call it 1.0, but it
didn't happen.
Renaming branches is not a big deal. The problem is that there is no a
consolidating version on the horizon.

I'll be glad to be wrong.
--Konstantin

Mime
View raw message