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 04:39:46 GMT
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