On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Alan Gates <ga...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> Doing this leaves new projects wedged. Not many people are on Hadoop 2.0 yet.
> Thus a lot of projects (including new ones like Ambari) are focussed on
> Hadoop 1.0.
> If you say you will only take new projects on your trunk, but your trunk is
> focussed
> on code most people haven't migrated to yet it seems you're limiting both
> Bigtop and new projects.
Two comments:
* it would be very nice if Hadoop offered MapReduce independently
of HDFS. At this
point I'd say that users are way better off with HDFS coming
from Hadoop 2.0 codeline,
while the jury is still out on YARN wrt. operational stability
as compared to Hadoop 1.0.
Thus, if only we had an option of mixing and matching the 2 --
that would have offered
the best of both worlds.
* I agree with Cos/Bruno that perhaps it is not worth upsetting
Bigtop 0.3.0 line, if only
because of optics and perception. Perhaps the right question to
ask (on a different
thread) is whether Bigtop needs to accommodate a sort of
even/odd release mentality of a
Linux kernel.
Thanks,
Roman.
