hadoop-pig-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alan Gates <ga...@yahoo-inc.com>
Subject Re: Begin a discussion about Pig as a top level project
Date Mon, 05 Apr 2010 18:23:58 GMT
I agree that Pig's code documentation is in sad shape.  I think our  
user documentation for each release is good, of limited.  I hope that  
our documents on wiki (such as PigJournal) help people understand our  
roadmap.  Please let us know if you disagree so we can find ways to  
improve it.

That said, it isn't clear to me how Pig being a TLP will solve that.   
The current committers or some subset thereof (see original message)  
would become the PMC.  Other than having expanded powers to vote on  
releases and who becomes new committers, the role of these new PMC  
members would not change much.  They won't have anymore time to  
address documentation and communication issues.  We need to find a way  
to address those no matter what governance framework or community Pig  
is in.

Alan.

On Apr 5, 2010, at 9:02 AM, hc busy wrote:

> This is awesome!!! As much as I hate PJM's for wasting time at all the
> places that I've worked at, I think formalizing the management  
> group(PMC) to
> openly and clearly determine feature roadmap and dev schedule is the  
> best
> thing pig can have.
>
> I once commented to my co-worker (also heavy pig user) that pig's
> organization (with all due respect to all you hardworking people) is  
> like a
> pigsty! documentations all over the place, javadocs from three  
> versions ago,
> much of the documentation doesn't match actual features... links to  
> the
> download page is broken.
>
> If you look at cascading's website... it's so much cleaner. (Of  
> course... we
> still use pig because it works well)
>
> I think as TLP, pig will receive better marketing and better support  
> in a
> way that will propel it both in popularity and in the amount of  
> support it
> receives.
>
> As a user, that change will be good for me.
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Ashutosh Chauhan <
> ashutosh.chauhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I concur with Santhosh here. I think main question we need to answer
>> here is how close our ties are with Hadoop currently and how it will
>> be in future ? When Pig was originally designed the intent was to  
>> keep
>> it backend neutral, so  much so that there was a reference backend
>> implementation (also known as local engine) which had nothing to do
>> with Hadoop. But things have changed since then. Hadoop's local mode
>> is adopted in favor of Pig's own local mode. We have moved from being
>> backend agnostic to hadoop favoring. And while this was happening, it
>> seems we tried to keep Pig Latin language independent of hadoop
>> backend  while Pig runtime started to make use of hadoop concepts.
>>
>> Apart from design decisions, this move also has a practical impact on
>> our codebase. Since we adopted Hadoop more closely, we got rid of an
>> extra layer of abstraction and instead started using similar
>> abstractions already existing in Hadoop. This has a positive impact
>> that it simplified the codebase and provides tighter integration with
>> Hadoop.
>> So, if we are continuing in a direction where Hadoop is our only
>> backend (or atleast a favored one), close ties to Hadoop are useful
>> because of the reasons Alan and Dmitriy pointed out. if not, then I
>> think moving out to TLP makes sense. Since, there is no efforts which
>> I am aware of, is trying to plug in a different backend for Pig, I
>> think maintaining close ties with Hadoop is useful for Pig. In future
>> when there is a different distributed computing platform comes up
>> which we want to use as backend, we can revisit our decision. So, as
>> for things stand today I am -1 to move out of  Hadoop.
>>
>> And I would also like to reiterate my point that though Pig runtime
>> may continue to get closer to Hadoop, we shall keep Pig Latin
>> completely backend agnostic.
>>
>> Ashutosh
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 12:43, Santhosh Srinivasan <sms@yahoo-inc.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I see this as a multi-part question. Looking back at some of the
>>> significant roadmap/existential questions asked in the last 12  
>>> months, I
>>> see the following:
>>>
>>> 1. With the introduction of SQL, what is the philosophy of Pig (I  
>>> sent
>>> an email about this approximately 9 months ago)
>>> 2. What is the approach to support backward compatibility in Pig  
>>> (Alan
>>> had sent an email about this 3 months ago)
>>> 3. Should Pig be a TLP (the current email thread).
>>>
>>> Here is my take on answering the aforementioned questions.
>>>
>>> The initial philosophy of Pig was to be backend agnostic. It was
>>> designed as a data flow language. Whenever a new language is  
>>> designed,
>>> the syntax and semantics of the language have to be laid out. The  
>>> syntax
>>> is usually captured in the form of a BNF grammar. The semantics are
>>> defined by the language creators. Backward compatibility is then a
>>> question of holding true to the syntax and semantics. With Pig, in
>>> addition to the language, the Java APIs were exposed to customers to
>>> implement UDFs (load/store/filter/grouping/row transformation etc),
>>> provision looping since the language does not support looping  
>>> constructs
>>> and also support a programmatic mode of access. Backward  
>>> compatibility
>>> in this context is to support API versioning.
>>>
>>> Do we still intend to position as a data flow language that is  
>>> backend
>>> agnostic? If the answer is yes, then there is a strong case for  
>>> making
>>> Pig a TLP.
>>>
>>> Are we influenced by Hadoop? A big YES! The reason Pig chose to  
>>> become a
>>> Hadoop sub-project was to ride the Hadoop popularity wave. As a
>>> consequence, we chose to be heavily influenced by the Hadoop  
>>> roadmap.
>>>
>>> Like a good lawyer, I also have rebuttals to Alan's questions :)
>>>
>>> 1. Search engine popularity - We can discuss this with the Hadoop  
>>> team
>>> and still retain links to TLP's that are coupled (loosely or  
>>> tightly).
>>> 2. Explicit connection to Hadoop - I see this as logical  
>>> connection v/s
>>> physical connection. Today, we are physically connected as a
>>> sub-project. Becoming a TLP, will not increase/decrease our  
>>> influence on
>>> the Hadoop community (think Logical, Physical and MR Layers :)
>>> 3. Philosophy - I have already talked about this. The tight  
>>> coupling is
>>> by choice. If Pig continues to be a data flow language with clear  
>>> syntax
>>> and semantics then someone can implement Pig on top of a different
>>> backend. Do we intend to take this approach?
>>>
>>> I just wanted to offer a different opinion to this thread. I  
>>> strongly
>>> believe that we should think about the original philosophy. Will  
>>> we have
>>> a Pig standards committee that will decide on the changes to the
>>> language (think C/C++) if there are multiple backend  
>>> implementations?
>>>
>>> I will reserve my vote based on the outcome of the philosophy and
>>> backward compatibility discussions. If we decide that Pig will be
>>> treated and maintained like a true language with clear syntax and
>>> semantics then we have a strong case to make it into a TLP. If  
>>> not, we
>>> should retain our existing ties to Hadoop and make Pig into a data  
>>> flow
>>> language for Hadoop.
>>>
>>> Santhosh
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Thejas Nair [mailto:tejas@yahoo-inc.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 4:08 PM
>>> To: pig-dev@hadoop.apache.org; Dmitriy Ryaboy
>>> Subject: Re: Begin a discussion about Pig as a top level project
>>>
>>> I agree with Alan and Dmitriy - Pig is tightly coupled with  
>>> hadoop, and
>>> heavily influenced by its roadmap. I think it makes sense to  
>>> continue as
>>> a sub-project of hadoop.
>>>
>>> -Thejas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/31/10 4:04 PM, "Dmitriy Ryaboy" <dvryaboy@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Over time, Pig is increasing its coupling to Hadoop (for good
>>>> reasons), rather than decreasing it. If and when Pig becomes a  
>>>> viable
>>>> entity without hadoop around, it might make sense as a TLP. As  
>>>> is, I
>>>> think becoming a TLP will only introduce unnecessary administrative
>>> and bureaucratic headaches.
>>>> So my vote is also -1.
>>>>
>>>> -Dmitriy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Alan Gates <gates@yahoo-inc.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So far I haven't seen any feedback on this.  Apache has asked the
>>>>> Hadoop PMC to submit input in April on whether some subprojects
>>>>> should be promoted to TLPs.  We, the Pig community, need to give
>>>>> feedback to the Hadoop PMC on how we feel about this.  Please make
>>> your voice heard.
>>>>>
>>>>> So now I'll head my own call and give my thoughts on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The biggest advantage I see to being a TLP is a direct  
>>>>> connection to
>>>>> Apache.  Right now all of the Pig team's interaction with Apache  
>>>>> is
>>>>> through the Hadoop PMC.  Being directly connected to Apache would
>>>>> benefit Pig team members who would have a better view into Apache.
>>>>> It would also raise our profile in Apache and thus make other
>>> projects more aware of us.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I am concerned about loosing Pig's explicit connection to
>>> Hadoop.
>>>>> This concern has a couple of dimensions.  One, Hadoop and  
>>>>> MapReduce
>>>>> are the current flavor of the month in computing.  Given that Pig
>>>>> shares a name with the common farm animal, it's hard to be sure  
>>>>> based
>>> on search statistics.
>>>>> But Google trends shows that "hadoop" is searched on much more
>>>>> frequently than "hadoop pig" or "apache pig" (see
>>>>> http://www.google.com/trends?q=hadoop%2Chadoop+pig).  I am  
>>>>> guessing
>>>>> that most Pig users come from Hadoop users who discover Pig via
>>> Hadoop's website.
>>>>> Loosing that subproject tab on Hadoop's front page may radically
>>>>> lower the number of users coming to Pig to check out our  
>>>>> project.  I
>>>>> would argue that this benefits Hadoop as well, since high level
>>>>> languages like Pig Latin have the potential to greatly extend the
>>> user base and usability of Hadoop.
>>>>>
>>>>> Two, being explicitly connected to Hadoop keeps our two  
>>>>> communities
>>>>> aware of each others needs.  There are features proposed for MR  
>>>>> that
>>>>> would greatly help Pig.  By staying in the Hadoop community Pig is
>>>>> better positioned to advocate for and help implement and test  
>>>>> those
>>>>> features.  The response to this will be that Pig developers can  
>>>>> still
>>>
>>>>> subscribe to Hadoop mailing lists, submit patches, etc.  That is,
>>>>> they can still be part of the Hadoop community.  Which  
>>>>> reinforces my
>>>>> point that it makes more sense to leave Pig in the Hadoop  
>>>>> community
>>>>> since Pig developers will need to be part of that community  
>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, philosophically it makes sense to me that projects that  
>>>>> are
>>>>> tightly connected belong together.  It strikes me as strange to  
>>>>> have
>>>>> Pig as a TLP completely dependent on another TLP.  Hadoop was
>>>>> originally a subproject of Lucene.  It moved out to be a TLP  
>>>>> when it
>>>>> became obvious that Hadoop had become independent of and useful  
>>>>> apart
>>>
>>>>> from Lucene.  Pig is not in that position relative to Hadoop.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I'm -1 on Pig moving out.  But this is a soft -1.  I'm open to
>>>>> being persuaded that I'm wrong or my concerns can be addressed  
>>>>> while
>>>>> still having Pig as a TLP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 19, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Alan Gates wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You have probably heard by now that there is a discussion going on
>>>>> in the
>>>>>> Hadoop PMC as to whether a number of the subprojects (Hbase,  
>>>>>> Avro,
>>>>>> Zookeeper, Hive, and Pig) should move out from under the Hadoop
>>>>>> umbrella and become top level Apache projects (TLP).  This
>>>>>> discussion has picked up recently since the Apache board has  
>>>>>> clearly
>>>
>>>>>> communicated to the Hadoop PMC that it is concerned that Hadoop 

>>>>>> is
>>>>>> acting as an umbrella project with many disjoint subprojects
>>>>>> underneath it.  They are concerned that this gives Apache little
>>>>>> insight into the health and happenings of the subproject  
>>>>>> communities
>>>
>>>>>> which in turn means Apache cannot properly mentor those  
>>>>>> communities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The purpose of this email is to start a discussion within the Pig
>>>>>> community about this topic.  Let me cover first what becoming TLP
>>>>>> would mean for Pig, and then I'll go into what options I think  
>>>>>> we as
>>> a community have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Becoming a TLP would mean that Pig would itself have a PMC that
>>>>>> would report directly to the Apache board.  Who would be on the 

>>>>>> PMC
>>>>>> would be something we as a community would need to decide.   
>>>>>> Common
>>>>>> options would be to say all active committers are on the PMC,  
>>>>>> or all
>>>
>>>>>> active committers who have been a committer for at least a  
>>>>>> year.  We
>>>
>>>>>> would also need to elect a chair of the PMC.  This lucky person
>>>>>> would have no additional power, but would have the additional
>>>>>> responsibility of writing quarterly reports on Pig's status for
>>>>>> Apache board meetings, as well as coordinating with Apache to get
>>>>>> accounts for new  committers, etc.  For more information see
>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Becoming a TLP would not mean that we are ostracized from the  
>>>>>> Hadoop
>>>
>>>>>> community.  We would continue to be invited to Hadoop Summits,  
>>>>>> HUGs,
>>> etc.
>>>>>> Since all Pig developers and users are by definition Hadoop  
>>>>>> users,
>>>>>> we would continue to be a strong presence in the Hadoop  
>>>>>> community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see three ways that we as a community can respond to this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Say yes, we want to be a TLP now.
>>>>>> 2) Say yes, we want to be a TLP, but not yet.  We feel we need  
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> time to mature.  If we choose this option we need to be able to
>>>>>> clearly articulate how much time we need and what we hope to see
>>>>>> change in that time.
>>>>>> 3) Say no, we feel the benefits for us staying with Hadoop  
>>>>>> outweigh
>>>>>> the drawbacks of being a disjoint subproject.  If we choose  
>>>>>> this, we
>>>
>>>>>> need to be able to say exactly what those benefits are and why we
>>>>>> feel they will be compromised by leaving the Hadoop project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There may other options that I haven't thought of.  Please feel 

>>>>>> free
>>>
>>>>>> to suggest any you think of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Questions?  Thoughts?  Let the discussion begin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>


Mime
View raw message