I am more than content with that assessment
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > I would love to deploy additional artifacts using classifiers for > hadoop2. We may be able to support that for the jar artifacts in > Maven, with some minor profile tweaks to the POM. (Apache > infrastructure actually allows you to deploy many artifacts to a > staging repo, before closing that staging repo... so it's not > impossible to stage all the hadoop1 stuff, then stage some additional > stuff). I'll try that for RC2 (is there already a ticket open for > this?). However, the assemble module already uses classifiers because > multiple DEBs/RPMs are built in a single module (not following Maven > conventions), so it's going to take some additional project > refactoring in 1.6 before we could put out different > RPMs/DEBs/tarballs for hadoop2. I'm going to go out on a limb here and > say that the Maven artifacts for hadoop2 would be good enough for 1.5. > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:10 AM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would also like to point out that hbase is putting out separate > releases > > for hadoop1 and hadoop2 ( > > http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/hbase/hbase-0.95.0). They also have > > support for both via maven, however they implemented a compatibility > module > > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6405) which brings the > schism > > down to a single jar that needs to be interchanged. That may be something > > we want to consider for 1.6. > > > > The reason that I care about this is I'm working on things on top of > > Accumulo, but against multiple versions of hadoop. I want to be able to > > easily able to build against different versions of Accumulo 1.5 without > > have to kill my local repo, reinstall accumulo built against my target > > version of hadoop, etc. etc. It would be SOOOO much more convenient to > just > > switch my accumulo version from 1.5 to 1.5-hadoop2 and be done with it. > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:32 AM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I've always been an advocate of sticking to vanilla compatibility, but > >> maintaining ability to be compatible with other versions. Hadoop 2ish > >> things are the first case where we are beginning to see broken run-time > >> compatibility due to some API changes. While the fragmented state of > hadoop > >> creates a larger set of jars, even just hadoop 1 vs. hadoop2 is enough > to > >> break things. I think priority number 1 should be compile time > >> compatibility with everything, followed by attempts for full runtime > >> compatibility. Obviously this can't happen, but it can be achieved by > >> identical source but split compiled resources, and I think that may be > >> something we have to do. If we're putting in the legwork to know how to > >> successfully run against hadoop_variant_8271, we may as well provide a > >> compiled unit for it as well. > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> Funny enough, I gothit by these shenanigans last night when I was > trying > >>> to run trunk against CDH3 locally. After working through jars that were > >>> marked asprovidedand weren't, and then running into > >>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/ACCUMULO-837< > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-837>, > >>> I threw in the towel and called it a night. > >>> > >>> I think one thing we can all agree upon is that the "fragmented" state > of > >>> Hadoop distributions is a pain to work around; however, we do have a > very > >>> broad coverage across that variance just on our committer list. > Considering > >>> Benson's comments on the subject of "supporting" non-Apache Hadoop > >>> variants, I would think that it's in our best interest to provide some > >>> level of warm-fuzzy in terms of support. I'm worried about making > people > >>> chase their tails just to get Accumulo up and running on their flavor > of > >>> choice. > >>> > >>> As far as what we distribute, I'm still of the mindset that support for > >>> building Accumulo against other versions of Hadoop can be satisfied by > >>> instructions on how to do so. Thus, I would say that Accumulo's default > >>> dependency should continue to track Apache Hadoop's stable as it > currently > >>> does (maybe revisiting classifiers for 1.6?). I would say we can > revisit > >>> the subject of the src jars we publish when/if a flavor breaks > Accumulo's > >>> compilation. > >>> > >>> Thoughts? > >>> > >>> > >>> On 4/26/2013 4:35 PM, John Vines wrote: > >>> > >>>> I had issues running a hadoop2 compiled version of accumulo against > >>>> CDH4, I > >>>> can't remember the specifics of it though. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> When I said specialized packaging, I was thinking of a naming > convention > >>>> to > >>>> distinguish hadoop1 vs. hadoop2 ( vs. vendor-specific hadoop) compiled > >>>> jars. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Billie Rinaldi < > >>>> [email protected]>**wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I'm not sure we are talking about actual vendor-specific code. We > are > >>>>> deciding whether or not to create additional release tarballs that > have > >>>>> been compiled against various vendors' Hadoop-compatible file > systems. > >>>>> Assuming that we determine there is nothing prohibiting us from doing > >>>>> this, > >>>>> I think it would simply be up to the release manager (i.e. anyone who > >>>>> assembles a release and calls a vote for it). If someone cares > enough > >>>>> about a particular distribution to build and create an extra tarball, > >>>>> they > >>>>> can. However, I don't think this is common for Apache projects -- > >>>>> additional packaging is usually left to supporting companies. I > haven't > >>>>> even noticed any releases yet that come in Hadoop 1 and Hadoop 2 > >>>>> flavors. > >>>>> > >>>>> I haven't heard (until now) that Accumulo compiled against an > >>>>> appropriate > >>>>> version of Apache Hadoop will not work with CDH, but John says that's > >>>>> the > >>>>> case. John, have you tried this? Also, what is the "specialized > >>>>> packaging" you referred to? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:32 PM, David Medinets > >>>>> <[email protected]>**wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Does it make sense to put vendor-specific stuff under a > >>>>>> contribs/vendors > >>>>>> directory? Doing so would certainly indicate that we are > >>>>>> vendor-agnostic. > >>>>>> And give vendors an obvious place to contribute. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >> >
