Hi Wei-Chiu,
I am glad this activity finally made it to the dev mailing list. Just
sharing the context being the guy who actually reverted this last time
it was in: It had a test failure on the PR itself and it went in, that
had nothing to do with the nature of the PR, generic for all PR and
all projects.

Some thoughts & Questions?
* Regarding this entire activity including the parent tickets: Do we
have any dev list agreement for this?
* What incompatibilities have been introduced till now for this and
what are planned.
* What does this activity bring up for the downstream folks adapting
this? Upgrading Hadoop is indeed important for a lot of projects and
for "us as well" and it is already a big pain (my past experience)
* What tests have been executed verifying all these changes including
this and the ones already in, apart from the Jenkins results, and
what's the plan.
* Considering you are heavily involved, any insights around perf stuff?
* This Comment 
[https://github.com/apache/hadoop/pull/5503#discussion_r1199614640],
this says it isn't moving all the instances? So, when do you plan to
work on this? Should that be a release blocker for us, since part of
the activity is in? Needless to say: "Best Effort, whatever could move
in, moves is, isn't an answer"
* The above comment thread even says losing some available abilities,
even some past one said so, what all is getting compromised, and how
do you plan to get it back? Most of the lost abilities are related to
HDFS, I don't think we are in a state to lose stuff there, if we
aren't having enough to make people adapt. Our ultimate goal isn't to
have something in, but to make people use it.
* What advantages do we get with all of these activities over existing
branch-3 stuff? Considering what are the trade-offs, Was discussing
with some folks offline & that seems to be a good question to have an
answer beforehand.

PS. Most of the time when this entire activity breaks & like usual we
are on a follow-up or on an addendum PR, there is generally some
sarcastic or a response like: 'We can't do it without breaking
things', and I am not taking any of these for now.

Most importantly since we are discussing it now and if there are
incompatibilities introduced already, is there a possible way out and
get rid of them, if not, if there ain't an agreement, how tough is
going back, because if it introduces incompatibilities for HDFS, you
won't get an agreement most probably, not sure about others but I will
veto that...


TLDR, Please hold unless all the concerns are addressed and we have an
agreement for this as well as anything done in past or planned for
future, Shouldn't compromise the adaptability of the product at any
cost

-Ayush

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 at 03:47, Wei-Chiu Chuang <weic...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am preparing to resolve HADOOP-18207
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-18207> (
> https://github.com/apache/hadoop/pull/5717).
>
> This change affects all modules. With this change, it will eliminate almost
> all the direct log4j usage.
>
> As always, landing such a big piece is tricky. I am sorry for the mishaps
> last time and am doing more due diligence to make it a smoother transition.
> I am triggering one last precommit check. Once the change is merged, Viraj
> and I will pay attention to any potential problems.
>
> Weichiu

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org

Reply via email to