hive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brock Noland <br...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Apache Hive 1.0 ?
Date Sun, 07 Dec 2014 20:28:24 GMT
FYI that it's pretty close in terms of functionality. Dong and Ferdinand
have done a ton of work here.

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Thejas Nair <thejas@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> I don't know for sure if beeline has finally reached feature parity
> with hive cli. I haven't looked at that very closely. I think we
> should start a separate thread on it and discuss with the community.
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Carl Steinbach <cwsteinbach@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Thejas,
> >
> > I agree that it's important to give users adequate time to migrate off of
> > HiveCLI. In order to avoid wasting time what do you think about including
> > this deprecation notice in the 1.0 release?
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Thejas Nair <thejas@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> HiveServer, and the original JDBC driver have already been purged in
> >> trunk. The HiveServer1 docs have been asking users to use HiveServer2
> >> for a long time.
> >>
> >> The case with Hive CLI is different. We never marked that as
> >> deprecated or asked users to use beeline instead. Beeline had been
> >> lacking in some features until recently. We just added some
> >> capabilities to beeline such has progress/log information support. We
> >> need to discuss deprecating that, deprecate it and wait for some time
> >> (at least a year or so considering how widely it is used), before we
> >> can remove it. I think that is more like a candidate for a 2.0 .
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Thejas
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Carl Steinbach <cwsteinbach@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I'd like to see HiveCLI, HiveServer, and the original JDBC driver
> >> > deprecated and purged from the codebase before the 1.0 release. This
> >> topic
> >> > probably needs its own thread, but I thought I should mention it here.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > - Carl
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> I am the RM for HBase-1.0 coming in a a couple of weeks (hopefully).
> I
> >> >> think both HBase and Hive are past due for doing 1.0 releases. So I
> am a
> >> >> major +1 for Hive-1.0 (non-binding of course).
> >> >>
> >> >> The important thing for calling something 1.0 I think is the focus
on
> >> user
> >> >> level API and compatibility issues. But still, you should think about
> >> >> future releases and for example when you can do a 1.x release versus
> 2.x
> >> >> release. We have started thinking about that some time ago, and we
> are
> >> >> adopting a semantic versioning proposal (
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hbase-dev/201411.mbox/%3C53115341.900549.1416100552603.JavaMail.yahoo@jws106116.mail.bf1.yahoo.com%3E
> >> >> )
> >> >> for this exact same reason. In Hive, things may be a bit different
> than
> >> >> HBase or Hadoop (since the major interface is SQL) but still I think
> you
> >> >> should consider the implications for all the APIs that Hive surfaces
> and
> >> >> for deployment, etc for a 1.0 discussion.
> >> >>
> >> >> For HBase, the official "theme" of the 1.0 release is (from my RC
> mail):
> >> >> > The theme of (eventual) 1.0 release is to
> >> >> > become a stable base for future 1.x series of releases. 1.0 release
> >> will
> >> >> > aim to achieve at least the same level of stability of 0.98
> releases
> >> >> > without introducing too many new features.
> >> >>
> >> >> What I am getting at is that, in HBase, we opted for not introducing
> a
> >> lot
> >> >> of major features and branched relatively early to give more time to
> >> >> stabilize the branch. In the end what you want to deliver and market
> as
> >> 1.0
> >> >> should be relatively stable in my opinion. Just my 2 cents from an
> >> outsider
> >> >> perspective.
> >> >>
> >> >> Enis
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Lefty Leverenz <
> >> leftyleverenz@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Would everyone just laugh if I suggested that a 1.0 release ought
> to
> >> >> > include complete documentation?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -- Lefty
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Thejas Nair <
> thejas@hortonworks.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > The reasons for confusion in the Hadoop case were different.
> There
> >> >> > > were many branches, and new features were added in minor
version
> >> >> > > releases, eg kerberos security was not there in "0.20.2",
but it
> was
> >> >> > > added in "0.20.20x".  Then you had other versions like "0.21",
> but
> >> the
> >> >> > > older "0.20.20x" version was the one that was converted as
1.x.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > This confusion isn't there in hive. In case of hive, every
"0.x"
> >> >> > > release has been adding new features, and releases have been
> >> >> > > sequential. "0.x.y" releases have been maintenance releases.
1.0
> is
> >> a
> >> >> > > sequential release after 0.14, and it is a newer release
than
> 0.14.
> >> I
> >> >> > > agree that the version in Hadoop created lot of confusion,
but I
> >> don't
> >> >> > > see this as being the same. We could check in the user mailing
> list
> >> to
> >> >> > > see if they are going to be HUGELY confused by this.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > If it makes things better, we can also include the change
to
> delete
> >> >> > > HiveServer1 in the new release. That is a safer change, which
was
> >> >> > > mainly just deleting that old code. That would be a major
> difference
> >> >> > > from 0.14. (The docs have already been updated to say that
0.14
> does
> >> >> > > not support 0.20, so I don't think we need that in 1.0).
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Looks like we have agreement that 1.0 versioning scheme is
a
> great
> >> >> > > thing for hive. I don't think there is a strong reason to
delay a
> >> 1.0
> >> >> > > release by several months to the detriment of hive.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Xuefu Zhang <xzhang@cloudera.com
> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > > > Major release means more functionality, while minor
releases
> >> provides
> >> >> > > > stability. Therefore, I'd think, 1.0, as a major release,
> should
> >> >> bring
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > > > something new to the user. If it's desirable to provide
more
> >> stable
> >> >> > > > release, then 0.14.1, 0.14.2, and so on are the right
ones. In
> my
> >> >> > > opinion,
> >> >> > > > we should avoid doing anti-pattern by introducing major
release
> >> like
> >> >> a
> >> >> > > > maintenance release and creating confusions among users.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > In one word, major release is NOT equal to major confusion.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > --Xuefu
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Sergey Shelukhin <
> >> >> > sergey@hortonworks.com
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> I think it's better to do 1.0 release off a maintenance
> release,
> >> >> since
> >> >> > > that
> >> >> > > >> is more stable. Trunk is moving fast.
> >> >> > > >> HBase uses odd release numbers for this purpose,
where 0.95,
> 97,
> >> 99
> >> >> > etc.
> >> >> > > >> are dev releases and 0.96, 0.98, 1.0 etc. are public;
that
> works
> >> >> well
> >> >> > > for
> >> >> > > >> baking, but since we don't have that seems like
14.0 would be
> a
> >> good
> >> >> > > place
> >> >> > > >> to bake. 15.0 with bunch of new bugs that we are
busy
> introducing
> >> >> may
> >> >> > > not
> >> >> > > >> be as good for 1.0 IMHO...
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Brock Noland <
> brock@cloudera.com
> >> >
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > Hi Thejas,
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > Thank you very much for your proposal!
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > Hadoop did something similar renaming branches
to branch-1
> and
> >> >> > > >> > branch-2. At the time, although I was very
much in favor of
> the
> >> >> new
> >> >> > > >> > release numbers, I thought it could have been
handled
> better.
> >> >> > Renaming
> >> >> > > >> > release branches ended up being very confusing
for users
> and I
> >> >> had a
> >> >> > > >> > ton of conversations with users about how releases
were
> >> related.
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > In this situation, I feel the situation is
similar, we'll
> >> release
> >> >> > 1.0
> >> >> > > >> > which is really just the second maintainence
release of the
> >> 0.14
> >> >> > > >> > branch. Thus it's 1.0 but really it's just
0.14 + some
> fixes. I
> >> >> feel
> >> >> > > >> > this will again be confusing for users. For
this important
> >> >> change, I
> >> >> > > >> > think we should use a new release vehicle.
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > Thus, I'd suggest we do the rename in trunk,
soon, and then
> the
> >> >> next
> >> >> > > >> > release of Hive will be 1.0.
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > Cheers,
> >> >> > > >> > Brock
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Thejas Nair
<
> >> >> > thejas@hortonworks.com>
> >> >> > > >> > wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > > Apache Hive is the de facto SQL query
engine in the hadoop
> >> >> > > ecosystem.
> >> >> > > >> > > I believe it is also the most widely used
one as well.
> Hive
> >> is
> >> >> > used
> >> >> > > in
> >> >> > > >> > > production in large number of enterprises.
> >> >> > > >> > > However, this 0.x.y versioning that we
have been using for
> >> Hive
> >> >> > > >> > > obscures this status of Hive.
> >> >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > > I propose creating a 1.0 release out of
the 0.14 branch of
> >> Hive.
> >> >> > We
> >> >> > > >> > > already have some bug fixes for 0.14 release
that have
> been
> >> >> added
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > > >> > > the branch and a maintenance release is
due. Having it
> out of
> >> >> this
> >> >> > > >> > > maintenance branch would create a better
first 1.0
> version,
> >> and
> >> >> we
> >> >> > > >> > > would be able to do it soon. What would
have been 0.15
> >> version
> >> >> > would
> >> >> > > >> > > then become 1.1 version .
> >> >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > > Thoughts ?
> >> >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > > Thanks,
> >> >> > > >> > > Thejas
> >> >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > > --
> >> >> > > >> > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> >> >> > > >> > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the
use of the
> >> individual
> >> >> or
> >> >> > > >> entity
> >> >> > > >> > to
> >> >> > > >> > > which it is addressed and may contain
information that is
> >> >> > > confidential,
> >> >> > > >> > > privileged and exempt from disclosure
under applicable
> law.
> >> If
> >> >> the
> >> >> > > >> reader
> >> >> > > >> > > of this message is not the intended recipient,
you are
> hereby
> >> >> > > notified
> >> >> > > >> > that
> >> >> > > >> > > any printing, copying, dissemination,
distribution,
> >> disclosure
> >> >> or
> >> >> > > >> > > forwarding of this communication is strictly
prohibited.
> If
> >> you
> >> >> > have
> >> >> > > >> > > received this communication in error,
please contact the
> >> sender
> >> >> > > >> > immediately
> >> >> > > >> > > and delete it from your system. Thank
You.
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> --
> >> >> > > >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> >> >> > > >> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of
the
> individual or
> >> >> > > entity to
> >> >> > > >> which it is addressed and may contain information
that is
> >> >> > confidential,
> >> >> > > >> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. If
> >> the
> >> >> > > reader
> >> >> > > >> of this message is not the intended recipient, you
are hereby
> >> >> notified
> >> >> > > that
> >> >> > > >> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution,
> disclosure or
> >> >> > > >> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If
> you
> >> have
> >> >> > > >> received this communication in error, please contact
the
> sender
> >> >> > > immediately
> >> >> > > >> and delete it from your system. Thank You.
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > --
> >> >> > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> >> >> > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual
or
> >> >> entity
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > > which it is addressed and may contain information that is
> >> confidential,
> >> >> > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
If
> the
> >> >> reader
> >> >> > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
> >> notified
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure
or
> >> >> > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you
> have
> >> >> > > received this communication in error, please contact the
sender
> >> >> > immediately
> >> >> > > and delete it from your system. Thank You.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> >> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or
> entity to
> >> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
> >> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the
> reader
> >> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that
> >> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
> >> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> >> received this communication in error, please contact the sender
> immediately
> >> and delete it from your system. Thank You.
> >>
>
> --
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately
> and delete it from your system. Thank You.
>

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