incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hitesh Shah <hit...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] stabilizing Hadoop releases wrt. downstream
Date Wed, 27 Feb 2013 01:37:50 GMT
Does this need to go to general@hadoop and not general@incubator? 

-- Hitesh 

On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:31 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:

> Hi!
> 
> for the past couple of releases of Hadoop 2.X code line the issue
> of integration between Hadoop and its downstream projects has
> become quite a thorny issue. The poster child here is Oozie, where
> every release of Hadoop 2.X seems to be breaking the compatibility
> in various unpredictable ways. At times other components (such
> as HBase for example) also seem to be affected.
> 
> Now, to be extremely clear -- I'm NOT talking about the *latest* version
> of Oozie working with the *latest* version of Hadoop, instead
> my observations come from running previous *stable*  releases
> of Bigtop on top of Hadoop 2.X RCs.
> 
> As many of you know Apache Bigtop aims at providing a single
> platform for integration of Hadoop and Hadoop ecosystem projects.
> As such we're uniquely positioned to track compatibility between
> different Hadoop releases with regards to the downstream components
> (things like Oozie, Pig, Hive, Mahout, etc.). Every single single RC
> we've been pretty diligent at trying to provide integration-level feedback
> on the quality of the upcoming release,  but it seems that our efforts
> don't quite suffice in Hadoop 2.X stabilizing.
> 
> Of course, one could argue that while Hadoop 2.X code line was
> designated 'alpha' expecting much in the way of perfect integration
> and compatibility was NOT what the Hadoop community was
> focusing on. I can appreciate that view, but what I'm interested in
> is the future of Hadoop 2.X not its past. Hence, here's my question
> to all of you as a Hadoop community at large:
> 
> Do you guys think that the project have reached a point where integration
> and compatibility issues should be prioritized really high on the list
> of things that make or break each future release?
> 
> The good news, is that Bigtop's charter is in big part *exactly* about
> providing you with this kind of feedback. We can easily tell you when
> Hadoop behavior, with regard to downstream components, changes
> between a previous stable release and the new RC (or even branch/trunk).
> What we can NOT do is submit patches for all the issues. We are simply
> too small a project and we need your help with that.
> 
> I truly believe that we owe it to the downstream projects, and in the
> second half of this email I will try to convince you of that.
> 
> We all know that integration projects are impossible to pull off
> unless there's a general consensus between all of the projects involved
> that they indeed need to work with each other. You can NOT force
> that notion, but you can always try to influence. This relationship
> goes both ways.
> 
> Consider a question in front of the downstream communities
> of  whether or not to adopt Hadoop 2.X as the basis. To answer
> that question each downstream project has to be reasonably
> sure that their concerns will NOT fall on deaf ears and that
> Hadoop developers are, essentially, 'ready' for them to pick
> up Hadoop 2.X. I would argue that so far the Hadoop community
> had gone out of its way to signal that 2.X codeline is NOT
> ready for the downstream.
> 
> I would argue that moving forward this is a really unfortunate
> situation that may end up undermining the long term success
> of Hadoop 2.X if we don't start addressing the problem. Think
> about it -- 90% of unit tests that run downstream on Apache
> infrastructure are still exercising Hadoop 1.X underneath.
> In fact, if you were to forcefully make, lets say, HBase's
> unit tests run on top of Hadoop 2.X quite a few of them
> are going to fail. Hadoop community is, in effect, cutting
> itself off from the biggest source of feedback -- its downstream
> users. This in turn:
> 
>  * leaves Hadoop project in a perpetual state of broken
>    windows syndrome.
> 
>  * leaves Apache Hadoop 2.X releases in a state considerably
>    inferior to the releases *including* Apache Hadoop done by the
>    vendors. The users have no choice but to alight themselves
>    with vendor offerings if they wish to utilize latest Hadoop functionality.
>    The artifact that is know as Apache Hadoop 2.X stopped being
>    a viable choice thus fracturing the user community and reducing
>    the benefits of a commonly deployed codebase.
> 
>   * leaves downstream projects of Hadoop  in a jaded state where
>     they legitimately get very discouraged and frustrated and eventually
>     give up thinking that -- well, we work with one release of Hadoop
>     (the stable one Hadoop 1.X) and we shall wait for the Hadoop
>     community to get their act together.
> 
> In my view (shared by quite a few members of the Apache Bigtop) we
> can definitely do better than this if we all agree that the proposed
> first 'beta' release of Hadoop 2.0.4 is the right time for it to happen.
> 
> It is about time Hadoop 2.X community wins back all those end users
> and downstream projects that got left behind during the alpha
> stabilization phase.
> 
> Thanks,
> Roman.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message