incubator-hama-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Jungblut <thomas.jungb...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Hadoop 1.0.0 and 0.23.0-SNAPSHOT
Date Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:23:37 GMT
>
> Maybe we can just version-up simply until we reach version 1.0.
> And, I'd like to focus more on Hadoop 1.0 and release Hama 1.0 on top
> of Hadoop 1.0.
> AFAIK, 0.21 and 0.22 releases are unpopular. We may want to release
> just Hama 2.0 for Hadoop 2.0.


Yes, this sounds reasonable.

2012/1/31 Chia-Hung Lin <clin4j@googlemail.com>

> +1
>
> And as Thomas mentioned that sticking to the stable release looks
> safer for us in maintenance.
>
> On 31 January 2012 11:13, Edward J. Yoon <edwardyoon@apache.org> wrote:
> > Maybe we can just version-up simply until we reach version 1.0.
> >
> > And, I'd like to focus more on Hadoop 1.0 and release Hama 1.0 on top
> > of Hadoop 1.0.
> >
> > AFAIK, 0.21 and 0.22 releases are unpopular. We may want to release
> > just Hama 2.0 for Hadoop 2.0.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Thomas Jungblut
> > <thomas.jungblut@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> Yes. But I very much doubt that it works without any changes.
> >>
> >> There is
> >> - 20.2 (legacy stable) which we fully support with Hama 0.4.0.
> >> - 0.20.203, 0.20.204, 0.20.205 which should work with Hama 0.4.0 as
> well.
> >> But we have to test this.
> >> - 21.0 I don't believe that anyone runs on this. However Hama may not
> run
> >> on this as well.
> >> - 22.0 and 1.0, I think both of them won't work.
> >> - 23.0 we have YARN.
> >>
> >> We'll see. From a critical point of view, we have two subreleases.
> Better
> >> would if we can somehow make Hama 0.4.1 work on 21 and 22.
> >>
> >> In my opinion we should always stick with the latest stable release,
> which
> >> is  *0.20.203. *
> >> And the question is how they think they proceed with the releases. On
> the
> >> common roadmap I see 1.1.0 and 0.22.1, as well as 24.0.
> >>
> >> 2012/1/26 Chia-Hung Lin <clin4j@googlemail.com>
> >>
> >>> If there is not difference between 0.4.0 and 0.4.1, perhaps
> >>> maintaining 1 version (e.g. 0.4.0 + hadoop 1.0 or 0.4.0 + 0.20.2)
> >>> would be a bit easier for us.
> >>>
> >>> On 25 January 2012 17:15, Thomas Jungblut
> >>> <thomas.jungblut@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>> > What if we ship different Hama versions with different Hadoop
> versions?
> >>> > let's say 0.4.0 ships with 20.2, 0.4.1 with Hadoop 1.0.
> >>> >
> >>> > What should we do with yarn?
> >>> > I believe that we should just pack the jar, so people can try it out.
> >>> > We also should flag this as ALPHA, I don't believe my work is stable.
> >>> >
> >>> > 2012/1/25 Tommaso Teofili <tommaso.teofili@gmail.com>:
> >>> >> +1
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 2012/1/25 Edward J. Yoon <edwardyoon@apache.org>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> Let's release 0.4 incubating with hadoop 0.20.2 and switch
the
> trunk
> >>> >>> to Hadoop 1.0 based.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Edward J. Yoon <
> edwardyoon@apache.org>
> >>> >>> wrote:
> >>> >>> > Hi all,
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > When we release 0.4-incubating, should we use hadoop 1.0.0?
and
> >>> should
> >>> >>> > yarn module be included with 0.23.0-SNAPSHOT?
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > --
> >>> >>> > Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
> >>> >>> > @eddieyoon
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> --
> >>> >>> Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
> >>> >>> @eddieyoon
> >>> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Thomas Jungblut
> >>> > Berlin
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thomas Jungblut
> >> Berlin <thomas.jungblut@gmail.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
> > @eddieyoon
>



-- 
Thomas Jungblut
Berlin <thomas.jungblut@gmail.com>

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