hawq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vineet Goel <vvin...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Apache HAWQ & Pivotal HDB release alignment
Date Fri, 17 Feb 2017 23:02:33 GMT
Hey all,

Thank you so much for all the feedback and comments you provided. After
considering all the feedback and thinking through further, I wanted to
conclude on this topic. There is value in downstream alignment between HAWQ
and commercial releases that benefit the users. We all may want to consider
and discuss another avenue along the lines of alignment on software
binaries for end-users. There is more that needs to be discussed on the
initiative of producing binaries at Apache HAWQ level, but I’ll leave that
discussion for a follow-on email thread. With that in mind, I think it’s
safe to proceed with the original HAWQ release version of 2.1.0.0 for now.
I’ll start a new discussion on producing binary artifacts for HAWQ
releases, sometime soon.

Thank you everyone!



On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 7:37 AM Alan Gates <alanfgates@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would strongly caution you against trying to line up Apache HAWQ and
> Pivotal release numbers.  My advise comes both from my role as your Apache
> mentor and as a  Hortonworker, where we have obviously had to deal with
> similar issues.
>
> As you mentioned, there is significant overlap between HDB users and the
> Apache HAWQ user community.  But your proposal is making the assumption
> that this will always be so.  With your Apache hats on, you have to plan
> for the possibility that it will not, and maybe even hope that it will
> not.  What happens when HAWQ developers that do not work for Pivotal join
> the project and start pushing releases on a schedule that does not match
> Pivotal's delivery schedule?  It would be inappropriate to prevent a
> release in Apache because Pivotal isn't ready for it.  And you do want to
> force Pivotal into shipping releases on a schedule it does not control.
>
> Speaking now specifically with my Hortonworks hat on, we have found it
> easier to let the release numbers move independently.  For example,
> Hortonworks' HDP 2.5 contains Apache Hadoop 2.7.  It was obvious early on
> we had no choice because of the diversity of participants in the Hadoop
> project.  But we have not found this confusing for our customers.
>
> Alan.
>
> > On Feb 16, 2017, at 8:39 PM, Vineet Goel <vvineet@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Let me try to clarify the request if there is any confusion. The request
> is
> > to move up the Apache HAWQ version to make room for HDB versioning to
> align
> > with it, which is why the proposal was made in this ML. Is it reasonable
> to
> > make such a request ? Well, the intention as stated earlier is purely to
> > help the user community; the overlap between HDB and HAWQ user community
> is
> > undeniable, so the request isn't meant to benefit just one side. With
> this
> > change, as Greg mentioned the benefits earlier, the Pivotal team is
> hoping
> > to leveraging Apache HAWQ releases as the basis of it's commercial
> releases
> > going forward, which would be a win-win for the end users and the Apache
> > HAWQ community.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Vineet
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 7:51 PM Lei Chang <lei_chang@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Agree with Greg. Looks this is not an issue and should not be discussed
> in
> >> apache.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Lei
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:14 AM, Greg Chase <greg@gregchase.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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