No, I meant stability of the framework itself: packaging, iTest, etc. Perhaps stability is too overloaded... robustness, perhaps?
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 10:57AM, Bruno Mahe wrote: > Bigtop as a framework? You mean stable api of its projects? > > Sent from my HTC EVO 4G LTE exclusively from Sprint > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Konstantin Boudnik" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: "Sean Mackrory" <[email protected]> > Subject: [DISCUSS] BOM for release 0.7.0 of Bigtop > Date: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 10:40 > > > Bruno, > > just to clarify my stance of 'stability': it is more about stability of the > Bigtop as a framework than a stability of the stack. > > I am not sure we have resources to do maintenance releases at this point. May > be it is just me. > > Cos > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 10:10AM, Bruno MahИ wrote: > > On 07/09/2013 09:47 AM, Sean Mackrory wrote: > >> Without wanting to detract from the spirit of focussing on system > >> stability, I'd like to suggest a few changes I think it's time we at least > >> discuss seriously: > >> > >> JDKs: I've seen a lot of people ask about JDK 7. Perhaps time to add > >> support for Oracle JDK 7? It's working pretty well in my experience, and > >> although it's less tested upstream, the only JDK we officially support is > >> officially EOL, so we're not exactly in a good position now IMO. > >> > >> Debian 7 has also been out for a while, and I think we should do at least > >> one release on it. It's likely very little work but I think there's value > >> in certifying the stack will work well there. (On the topic of OS's - are > >> we specifically talking SP3 of SLES 11?). I don't feel strongly on this, > >> but I'm just curious if there's a reason you're suggesting staying with > >> 12.10 and not 13.04 - other than wanting less change in this release? > >> Again, I hardly have an opinion on that one. > >> > >> Other components that have recently had releases that I don't consider to > >> impact the > >> - Hue 2.4.0 > >> - Whirr 0.8.2 > >> - Flume 1.4.0 > >> > >> There's also been a ticket to package Avro for a long time and I'd like to > >> get to that soon. Perhaps Parquet as well? Although like Phoenix and > >> DataFu, I would suggest doing just the libraries for now, not all the CLI > >> tools. > >> > >> Again - I don't mean to take away from the focus on stability, but I also > >> don't think we shouldn't stretch to stay up to date either. > >> > >> +1 to everything else as suggested, however. > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Would you be willing to consider Phoenix, only BIGTOP-993? Installing the > >>> package produced by 993 only drops a library for HBase into > >>> /usr/lib/phoenix, essentially the same relationship between the DataFu > >>> package and Pig. There is follow up work that is more ambitious, for > >>> example BIGTOP-1007, but that is not required by any means and could come > >>> in if/whenever you are comfortable with it. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Guys, > >>>> > >>>> I wanna kick-off the discussion on the content of 0.7.0 BOM > >>>> Release 0.6.0 was all about stabilization of the stack and I think we > >> got a > >>>> great headway on that. The following components/OS were in the frame of > >> the > >>>> discussion: > >>>> http://is.gd/H52iVe > >>>> > >>>> My personal take that we need to spend this release cycle working on the > >>>> improvements in Bigtop itself: we got enough "technical debts" in the > >>>> pipeline that have to be addressed. To name a few: > >>>> - testability/test coverage > >>>> - test framework > >>>> - package improvements > >>>> - build improvements (including performance) > >>>> > >>>> In order to be able to deliver a solid stack again yet improve all things > >>>> Bigtop I'd like to focus on the latter, hence keeping the former at bay > >> and > >>>> limiting the component updates to the bugfix releases only (if > >> warranted). > >>>> E.g. > >>>> > >>>> Hadoop 2.0.5 or later (stabilization branch of Hadoop 2) > >>>> HBase 0.94.9 (update from the Bigtop 0.6.0) > >>>> HCatalog 0.5.0 (same as 0.6.0, as well as following...) > >>>> Zookeeper 3.4.5 > >>>> Pig 0.11.1 > >>>> Hive 0.10.0 > >>>> Sqoop 2 > >>>> Oozie 3.3.2 > >>>> Whirr 0.8.1 > >>>> Mahout 0.7 > >>>> Flume 1.3.1 > >>>> Giraph 0.2.0 > >>>> Hue 2.2.0 > >>>> Datafu 0.0.6 > >>>> Solr 4.2.1 > >>>> Crunch 0.5.0 > >>>> Tomcat 6.0.36 > >>>> Spark 0.7.3 (it has been in the queue for a long time) > >>>> > >>>> Also, I'd suggest to keep the same set of OSes as last time: > >>>> > >>>> CentOS/RHEL5 > >>>> CentOS/RHEL6 > >>>> SLES11 > >>>> Ubuntu 12.04 (LTS) > >>>> Fedora 18 > >>>> OpenSUSE 12.3 > >>>> Ubuntu 12.10 > >>>> > >>>> To reiterate, with a known stable version of the stack we can safely > >> focus > >>>> on > >>>> the improvements to the framework and the overall system usability. > >>>> > >>>> Please jump on the discussion Also, I have opened up the following JIRA > >> to > >>>> track the BOM update https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-1023 > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Cos > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> - Andy > >>> > >>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > >>> (via Tom White) > >> > > > > > > +1 to what Andrew and Sean said. > > I would also like to add: > > * I would also like to keep the door open for Apache Gora to come in. > > Someone is already working on it > > * Fedora 19 is out and maybe 20 will be out by the time we release 0.7.0 > > > > With regard to stability, if included all the changes listed so far seem > > a little bit too much, what about dedicating a 0.6.1 to stability so > > 0.7.0 can include all the shiny things listed above? A 0.6.1 would > > enable us to be more strict with the patches/fixes/updates being > > included as well as signaling a more stable version to users. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Bruno
