hawq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Chase <g...@gregchase.com>
Subject Re: Apache HAWQ & Pivotal HDB release alignment
Date Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:14:47 GMT
I'm confused here.  Are we voting on version numbering of a commercial
distribution of HAWQ? That would not be a concern or in the jurisdiction of
the Apache HAWQ community.

Are we asking Apache HAWQ to change its version numbering to reflect that
of a commercial distribution? That would not be appropriate.

Either way, this either doesn't need to be voted on in the community, or
shouldn't be.

A commercial distribution is always welcome to take whatever version of the
code lines it wants from Apache HAWQ.  However, there's a whole lot of
benefits for the commercial distribution if they were to take established
release versions from Apache HAWQ that likely have gone through IP checks
and hopefully a degree of quality checks.

It also helps improve transparency of the commercial version since users
can look into the Jira and Github to see what new features and fixes are
present in the open source code.

-Greg

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Shivram Mani <shivram.mani@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1
> I don't see any negative impact in bumping up the version to 2.2. The
> positive outcome from this is that we will have more frequent apache HAWQ
> releases since majority of the committers who happen to also work on HDB
> will be focussed on apache release as the primary release channel.
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Michael Pearce <Michael.Pearce@ig.com>
> wrote:
>
> > -1
> >
> > Whilst I agree that version alignment is important for Pivotal and users
> > of HDB (my own self being a HDP client).
> >
> > We have to remember this is an open source Apache project and Pivotal are
> > providing a downstream supported version, surely this should be a case of
> > Pivotal aligning to the Apache Version, not the other-way around.
> >
> > Likewise, if any other company wished to provide a supported bundle of
> > HAWQ, then I wouldn’t expect the open source Apache project to change
> their
> > versioning for a commercial enterprise. I see this much the same way
> > multiple companies support postgres.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Mike
> >
> > On 16/02/2017, 06:06, "Lili Ma" <lilima@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >     +1 for version alignment
> >
> >     2017-02-16 13:43 GMT+08:00 Ruilong Huo <rhuo@pivotal.io>:
> >
> >     > Looks a good plan for the version alignment. +1
> >     >
> >     > Best regards,
> >     > Ruilong Huo
> >     >
> >     > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Yandong Yao <yyao@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >     >
> >     > > +1 for consistence
> >     > >
> >     > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Ed Espino <espino@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >     > >
> >     > > > +1 to this recommendation. It has been a bit confusing keeping
> > track of
> >     > > > versions. The Apache HAWQ version update is fairly simple. Now
> > is the
> >     > > time
> >     > > > to make such an update. I imagine it will get harder the more
> > time
> >     > passes
> >     > > > on and the more the community grows.
> >     > > >
> >     > > > This will impact Jira versioning for our upcoming Apache HAWQ
> >     > incubating
> >     > > > release. I will take care of that as part of the release
> process.
> >     > > >
> >     > > > Thanks,
> >     > > > -=e
> >     > > >
> >     > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Vineet Goel <
> vvineet@apache.org
> > >
> >     > wrote:
> >     > > >
> >     > > > > Hi HAWQ dev community,
> >     > > > >
> >     > > > >
> >     > > > > Over the last few months, many users in the HAWQ community
> have
> >     > > expressed
> >     > > > > confusion about Apache HAWQ incubating release versions
as
> > compared
> >     > to
> >     > > > > Pivotal HDB release version numbering. Since Pivotal’s
> > donation of
> >     > HAWQ
> >     > > > > codebase to Apache in September 2015, the community has
> grown,
> > and
> >     > > users
> >     > > > of
> >     > > > > Apache HAWQ as well as HDB have participated and sought
help
> > from the
> >     > > > HAWQ
> >     > > > > dev/user community via mailing lists.
> >     > > > >
> >     > > > >
> >     > > > > With my Pivotal representation on this topic, I’m proposing
> > Pivotal
> >     > > team
> >     > > > to
> >     > > > > make an effort to align commercial releases of HDB based
on
> > Apache
> >     > HAWQ
> >     > > > > releases as much as possible. And, as part of the proposal,
> the
> >     > > > commercial
> >     > > > > HDB versions should also be aligned with the Apache HAWQ
> > release
> >     > > > > versioning. The net result of this alignment at Pivotal
will
> > likely
> >     > > > result
> >     > > > > in higher Apache HAWQ release cadence and collaboration,
plus
> > lesser
> >     > > user
> >     > > > > confusion. I have seen this model work well in other Apache
> >     > communities
> >     > > > > like Apache Ambari and more, in conjunction with the
> respective
> >     > > > commercial
> >     > > > > releases.
> >     > > > >
> >     > > > >
> >     > > > > Such an alignment on the versioning could quickly be achieved
> > by
> >     > doing
> >     > > a
> >     > > > > one-time version bump of upcoming Apache HAWQ release to
> > 2.2.0.0
> >     > > (versus
> >     > > > > 2.1.0.0) as there is no way to lower the version on the
other
> > end.
> >     > > Would
> >     > > > > the community & the Release Manager support such a version
> > string
> >     > > change
> >     > > > to
> >     > > > > help Pivotal align their HDB releases to Apache HAWQ
> releases?
> > I
> >     > > believe
> >     > > > > such an alignment will benefit the joint user community
> >     > significantly.
> >     > > > >
> >     > > > >
> >     > > > > Regards,
> >     > > > >
> >     > > > > Vineet
> >     > > > >
> >     > > >
> >     > > >
> >     > > >
> >     > > > --
> >     > > > *Ed Espino*
> >     > > > *espino@apache.org <espino@apache.org>*
> >     > > >
> >     > >
> >     > >
> >     > >
> >     > > --
> >     > > Best Regards,
> >     > > Yandong
> >     > >
> >     >
> >
> >
> > The information contained in this email is strictly confidential and for
> > the use of the addressee only, unless otherwise indicated. If you are not
> > the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose to
> others
> > this message or any attachment. Please also notify the sender by replying
> > to this email or by telephone (+44(020 7896 0011) and then delete the
> email
> > and any copies of it. Opinions, conclusion (etc) that do not relate to
> the
> > official business of this company shall be understood as neither given
> nor
> > endorsed by it. IG is a trading name of IG Markets Limited (a company
> > registered in England and Wales, company number 04008957) and IG Index
> > Limited (a company registered in England and Wales, company number
> > 01190902). Registered address at Cannon Bridge House, 25 Dowgate Hill,
> > London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets Limited (register number 195355) and IG
> > Index Limited (register number 114059) are authorised and regulated by
> the
> > Financial Conduct Authority.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> shivram mani
>

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