hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] stabilizing Hadoop releases wrt. downstream
Date Thu, 07 Mar 2013 23:29:37 GMT
Thanks Bobby.

HBase trunk can build upon 2.0 SNAPSHOOT so that regression can be detected
early.

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Robert Evans <evans@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> That is a great point.  I have been meaning to set up the Jenkins build
> for branch-2 for a while, so I took the 10 mins and just did it.
>
> https://builds.apache.org/job/Hadoop-Common-2-Commit/
>
> Don't let the name fool you, it publishes not just common, but HDFS, YARN,
> MR, and tools too.  You should now have branch-2 SNAPSHOTS updated on each
> commit to branch-2.  Feel free to bug me if you need more integration
> points.  I am not an RE guy, but I can hack it to make things work :)
>
> --Bobby
>
> On 3/5/13 12:15 AM, "Konstantin Boudnik" <cos@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >Arun,
> >
> >first of all, I don't think anyone is trying to put a blame on someone
> >else. E.g. I had similar experience with Oozie being broken because of
> >certain released changes in the upstream.
> >
> >I am sure that most people in BigTop community - especially those who
> >share the committer-ship privilege in BigTop and other upstream
> >projects, including Hadoop, - would be happy to help with the
> >stabilization of the Hadoop base. The issue that a downstream
> >integration project is likely to have is - for once - the absence of
> >regularly published development artifacts. In the light of "it didn't
> >happen if there's no picture" here's a couple of examples:
> >
> >  - 2.0.2-SNAPSHOT weren't published at all; only release 2.0.2-alpha
> >artifacts were
> >  - 2.0.3-SNAPSHOT weren't published until Feb 29, 2013 (it happened just
> >once)
> >
> >So, technically speaking, unless an integration project is willing to
> >build and maintain its own artifacts, it is impossible to do any
> >preventive validation.
> >
> >Which brings me to my next question: how do you guys address
> >"Integration is high on the list of *every* release". Again, please
> >don't get me wrong - I am not looking to lay a blame on or corner
> >anyone - I am really curious and would appreciate the input.
> >
> >
> >Vinod:
> >
> >> As you yourself noted later, the pain is part of the 'alpha' status
> >> of the release. We are targeting +one of the immediate future
> >> releases to be a beta and so these troubles are really only the
> >> short +term.
> >
> >I don't really want to get into the discussion about of what
> >constitutes the alpha and how it has delayed the adoption of Hadoop2
> >line. However, I want to point out that it is especially important for
> >"alpha" platform to work nicely with downstream consumers of the said
> >platform. For quite obvious reasons, I believe.
> >
> >> I think there is a fundamental problem with the interaction of
> >> Bigtop with the downstream projects, if nothing else, with
> >
> >BigTop is as downstream as it can get, because BigTop essentially
> >consumes all other component releases in order to produce a viable
> >stack. Technicalities aside...
> >
> >> Hadoop. We never formalized on the process, will BigTop step in
> >> after an RC is up for vote or before? As I see it, it's happening
> >
> >Bigtop essentially can give any component, including Hadoop, and
> >better yet - the set of components - certain guaratees about
> >compatibility and dependencies being included. Case in point is
> >missing commons libraries missed in 1.0.1 release that essentially
> >prevented HBase from working properly.
> >
> >> after the vote is up, so no wonder we are in this state. Shall we
> >> have a pre-notice to Bigtop so that it can step in before?
> >
> >The above is in contradiction with earlier statement of "Integration
> >is high on the list of *every* release". If BigTop isn't used for
> >integration testing, then how said integration testing is performed?
> >Is it some sort of test-patch process as Luke referred earlier?  And
> >why it leaves the room for the integration issues being uncaught?
> >Again, I am genuinely interested to know.
> >
> >> these short term pains. I'd rather like us swim through these now
> >> instead of support broken APIs and features in our beta, having seen
> >> this very thing happen with 1.*.
> >
> >I think you're mixing the point of integration with downstream and
> >being in an alpha phase of the development. The former isn't about
> >supporting "broken APIs" - it is about being consistent and avoid
> >breaking the downstream applicaitons without letting said applications
> >to accomodate the platform changes first.
> >
> >Changes in the API, after all, can be relatively easy traced by
> >integration validation - this is the whole point of integration
> >testing. And BigTop does the job better then anything around, simply
> >because there's nothing else around to do it.
> >
> >If you stay in shape-shifting "alpha" that doesn't integrate well for
> >a very long time, you risk to lose downstream customers' interest,
> >because they might get tired of waiting until a next stable API will
> >be ready for them.
> >
> >> Let's fix the way the release related communication is happening
> >> across our projects so that we can all work together and make 2.X a
> >> success.
> >
> >This is a very good point indeed! Let's start a separate discussion
> >thread on how we can improve the release model for coming Hadoop
> >releases, where we - as the community - can provide better guarantees
> >of the inter-component compatibility (sorry for an overused word).
> >
> >Cos
> >
> >On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 10:58AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> >> I feel this is being blown out of proportion.
> >>
> >> Integration is high on the list of *every* release. In future, if
> >>anyone or
> >> bigtop wants to help, running integration tests on a hadoop RC and
> >>providing
> >> feedback would be very welcome. I'm pretty sure I will stop an RC if it
> >> means it breaks and Oozie or HBase or Pig or Hive and re-spin it. For
> >>e.g.
> >> see recent efforts to do a 2.0.4-alpha.
> >>
> >> With hadoop-2.0.3-alpha we discovered 3 *bugs* - making it sound like we
> >> intentionally disregard integation issues is very harsh.
> >>
> >> Please also see other thread where we discussed stabilizing APIS,
> >>protocols
> >> etc. for the next 'beta' release.
> >>
> >> Arun
> >>
> >> On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:43 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi!
> >> >
> >> > for the past couple of releases of Hadoop 2.X code line the issue
> >> > of integration between Hadoop and its downstream projects has
> >> > become quite a thorny issue. The poster child here is Oozie, where
> >> > every release of Hadoop 2.X seems to be breaking the compatibility
> >> > in various unpredictable ways. At times other components (such
> >> > as HBase for example) also seem to be affected.
> >> >
> >> > Now, to be extremely clear -- I'm NOT talking about the *latest*
> >>version
> >> > of Oozie working with the *latest* version of Hadoop, instead
> >> > my observations come from running previous *stable*  releases
> >> > of Bigtop on top of Hadoop 2.X RCs.
> >> >
> >> > As many of you know Apache Bigtop aims at providing a single
> >> > platform for integration of Hadoop and Hadoop ecosystem projects.
> >> > As such we're uniquely positioned to track compatibility between
> >> > different Hadoop releases with regards to the downstream components
> >> > (things like Oozie, Pig, Hive, Mahout, etc.). Every single single RC
> >> > we've been pretty diligent at trying to provide integration-level
> >>feedback
> >> > on the quality of the upcoming release,  but it seems that our efforts
> >> > don't quite suffice in Hadoop 2.X stabilizing.
> >> >
> >> > Of course, one could argue that while Hadoop 2.X code line was
> >> > designated 'alpha' expecting much in the way of perfect integration
> >> > and compatibility was NOT what the Hadoop community was
> >> > focusing on. I can appreciate that view, but what I'm interested in
> >> > is the future of Hadoop 2.X not its past. Hence, here's my question
> >> > to all of you as a Hadoop community at large:
> >> >
> >> > Do you guys think that the project have reached a point where
> >>integration
> >> > and compatibility issues should be prioritized really high on the list
> >> > of things that make or break each future release?
> >> >
> >> > The good news, is that Bigtop's charter is in big part *exactly* about
> >> > providing you with this kind of feedback. We can easily tell you when
> >> > Hadoop behavior, with regard to downstream components, changes
> >> > between a previous stable release and the new RC (or even
> >>branch/trunk).
> >> > What we can NOT do is submit patches for all the issues. We are simply
> >> > too small a project and we need your help with that.
> >> >
> >> > I truly believe that we owe it to the downstream projects, and in the
> >> > second half of this email I will try to convince you of that.
> >> >
> >> > We all know that integration projects are impossible to pull off
> >> > unless there's a general consensus between all of the projects
> >>involved
> >> > that they indeed need to work with each other. You can NOT force
> >> > that notion, but you can always try to influence. This relationship
> >> > goes both ways.
> >> >
> >> > Consider a question in front of the downstream communities
> >> > of  whether or not to adopt Hadoop 2.X as the basis. To answer
> >> > that question each downstream project has to be reasonably
> >> > sure that their concerns will NOT fall on deaf ears and that
> >> > Hadoop developers are, essentially, 'ready' for them to pick
> >> > up Hadoop 2.X. I would argue that so far the Hadoop community
> >> > had gone out of its way to signal that 2.X codeline is NOT
> >> > ready for the downstream.
> >> >
> >> > I would argue that moving forward this is a really unfortunate
> >> > situation that may end up undermining the long term success
> >> > of Hadoop 2.X if we don't start addressing the problem. Think
> >> > about it -- 90% of unit tests that run downstream on Apache
> >> > infrastructure are still exercising Hadoop 1.X underneath.
> >> > In fact, if you were to forcefully make, lets say, HBase's
> >> > unit tests run on top of Hadoop 2.X quite a few of them
> >> > are going to fail. Hadoop community is, in effect, cutting
> >> > itself off from the biggest source of feedback -- its downstream
> >> > users. This in turn:
> >> >
> >> >   * leaves Hadoop project in a perpetual state of broken
> >> >     windows syndrome.
> >> >
> >> >   * leaves Apache Hadoop 2.X releases in a state considerably
> >> >     inferior to the releases *including* Apache Hadoop done by the
> >> >     vendors. The users have no choice but to alight themselves
> >> >     with vendor offerings if they wish to utilize latest Hadoop
> >>functionality.
> >> >     The artifact that is know as Apache Hadoop 2.X stopped being
> >> >     a viable choice thus fracturing the user community and reducing
> >> >     the benefits of a commonly deployed codebase.
> >> >
> >> >    * leaves downstream projects of Hadoop  in a jaded state where
> >> >      they legitimately get very discouraged and frustrated and
> >>eventually
> >> >      give up thinking that -- well, we work with one release of Hadoop
> >> >      (the stable one Hadoop 1.X) and we shall wait for the Hadoop
> >> >      community to get their act together.
> >> >
> >> > In my view (shared by quite a few members of the Apache Bigtop) we
> >> > can definitely do better than this if we all agree that the proposed
> >> > first 'beta' release of Hadoop 2.0.4 is the right time for it to
> >>happen.
> >> >
> >> > It is about time Hadoop 2.X community wins back all those end users
> >> > and downstream projects that got left behind during the alpha
> >> > stabilization phase.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Roman.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Arun C. Murthy
> >> Hortonworks Inc.
> >> http://hortonworks.com/
> >>
> >>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message