Indeed. Nothing but an effort is preventing us from doing. While I am not convinced that LTS has to be based on Hadoop 1.x, considering the growing interest in Hadoop 2-alpha line, keeping 0.3 alive is definitely something worth doing.
Cos On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 09:46PM, Bruno Mahé wrote: > On 03/06/2013 10:10 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > >I want to throw in the following discussion topic. > > > >We are clearly having integration issues when putting together > >bleeding edge Hadoop based stacks. I don't want to argue about the > >roots of the phenomena not about how it can be fixed. The purpose of > >this discussion is different. > > > >There is an ongoing discussion happening at > > http://s.apache.org/hadoop-stablization > > > >and http://is.gd/HX5JA2 > > > >I think this is the time for community to start doing something and > >improving the situation, helping our users in the passing. I am sure > >the effort outlined below would beneficial for individuals as well as > >commercial vendors alike. > > > >Now, think Ubuntu - arguably the _most_ successful community driven > >Linux distribution in the world. There are two trains of the releases > >happening all the time: STS and LTS. The former have about 6 months of > >support in the form of updates and is used as a technology preview for > >the next LTS release. The latter is good for 3 years and normally is a > >way more stable then STS releases. > > > >Currently, BigTop is focusing on the latest (and apparently not > >greatest) of its component releases. While sometimes it gives certain > >guarantees that A of X.y version will work with B of W.v version, it > >isn't much of reconciliation to the users and vendors who simply want > >to have a stable reference implementation of a Hadoop stack that has > >been defined and supported by the community, with clear path for the > >updates and testing put out in the open. > > > >Because of the nature of the differences between Hadoop 1 and Hadoop 2 > >we can even try to run two different LTS for both kinds of stack. > > > >I believe there's not much more to say about it, except that this is, > >in my opinion, a good way to establish our project as de-facto go-to > >place for community driven Hadoop based stacks and a focal point for > >the integration in the ASF storage and analytics projects. > > > >Let's the discussion begin. > > Cos > > > > > Hi, > > What was preventing anyone from offering such stack until now? > I was under the impression this is what the branch 0.3.X is all > about. There was some interest, but apparently not enough to get > releases out. So I am all for it but I am not sure building the > consensus for a LTS stamp will be enough if we don't get enough > interest/people/time to have stable releases out in the first place. > > Why not: > * Backport applicable bugfixes from trunk into a stable branch of > your choice (let say 0.3.X) > * Update minor version (supposedly bugfix only) of the downstream > components in the stable branch of your choice (let say 0.3.X) > * Add more tests to bigtop if necessary > * Run the tests > * Start a vote on a release > Rinse and repeat. > > Note that I agree with you, having some LTS releases would be great. > But beside doing the work, I fail to see what is preventing us from > doing so right now. > > Thanks, > Bruno >
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
