[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-1016?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13689931#comment-13689931
]
Andrew Purtell commented on BIGTOP-1016:
----------------------------------------
> Thinking more about this issue, it is no different between HBase using 0.95
> previews leading to 0.96.
Not sure that's the same because HBase 0.95 is released with warnings it may
eat data.
> although there are some aspects like the /usr/bin/sqoop script and
> directories that will need to either be renamed in one or both of the
> packages, or they'll need to conflict.
Was thinking /usr/bin/sqoop1 and /usr/lib/sqoop1.
Since 0.6 went out with /usr/bin/sqoop as Sqoop 2 it's too late to do something
like /usr/bin/sqoop2 with Sqoop 1.4.x as /usr/bin/sqoop, and so on.
> Add a new package to bring back Sqoop 1.4.x
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: BIGTOP-1016
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-1016
> Project: Bigtop
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Affects Versions: 0.7.0
> Reporter: Andrew Purtell
>
> On dev@bigtop, Venkat Ranganathan wrote in to say:
> {quote}
> While I understand the motivation behind moving on with Sqoop2 based
> releases (I was part of the 1.99.2 release) Sqoop 1.99.x is an evolving
> preview release and I think it would make it easier for Sqoop users if
> we have both Sqoop2 and Sqoop 1.x available until there is some more
> feature parity. It may be a specific situation with Sqoop project alone
> with two releases actively being developed.
> I would propose this if there is an update.
> {quote}
> If this is generally agreeable, it seems straightforward to port the Sqoop
> 1.4.x based package from Bigtop 0.5 to trunk, perhaps as a new "sqoop1"
> package.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
