Vendor X may be slightly against having two Flink-for-X distributions -- their own and another on a site/project they may not control.
Are all these builds really needed? meaning, does a generic Hadoop 2.x build not work on some or most of these? I'd hope so. Might keep things simpler for everyone. For example, are the "CDH5" and "HDP2.1" builds not really just roughly "Hadoop 2.4" builds? If 2.4 needs its own profile so be it, but it need not be so specific to a flavor. How about some simple steps to at least de-emphasize vendor builds? like a separate page or pop-down panel? I can understand wanting to make it as simple as possible to access the right build straight away, since these distros don't have Flink yet of course. And hey, we make concessions in OSS to different versions of Java or Linux vs Windows all the time. The bright line isn't clear. Perhaps: take steps to treat this more as a special case, and produce these types of builds only where needed? where a non-trivial number of potential users will have trouble consuming the project without a tweak, create a special release on the side? On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Alan Gates <[email protected]> wrote: > My concern with this is it appears to put Apache in the business of > picking the right Hadoop vendors. What about IBM, Pivotal, etc.? I get > that the actual desire here is to make things easy for users, and that the > original three packages offered (Hadoop1, CDH4, Hadoop2) will cover 95% of > users. I like that. I just don't know how to do this and avoid the > appearance of favoritism. > > Perhaps the next best step is to ask on incubator-general and see if there > is an Apache wide policy or if there needs to be one. > > Alan. > > Robert Metzger <[email protected]> > August 18, 2014 at 6:54 > Hi, > > I think we all agree that our project benefits from providing pre-compiled > binaries for different hadoop distributions. > > I've drafted an extension of the current download page, that I would > suggest to use after the release: http://i.imgur.com/MucW2HD.png > As you can see, users can directly pick the Flink version they want (its > not going to show the CDH4 package there) or they can choose from the table > with the most popular (in my opinion) vendor distributions. > The different links still point to the "hadoop1", "hadoop2" binaries, but I > don't think this is highlighting any hadoop vendors. > > What do you think? > > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Henry Saputra <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > > Henry Saputra <[email protected]> > August 15, 2014 at 14:45 > Ah sorry Alan, did not see your reply to Owen. > > Mea culpa from me. > > - Henry > > > > Alan Gates <[email protected]> > August 15, 2014 at 14:15 > Sorry, apparently this was unclear, as others asked the same question. > Flink hasn't had any Apache releases yet. I was referring to the proposed > release that Robert sent out, > http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-0.6-incubating-rc7/ > > Alan. > > > Sean Owen <[email protected]> > August 15, 2014 at 11:26 > PS, sorry for being dense, but I don't see vendor packages at > http://flink.incubator.apache.org/downloads.html ? > > Is it this page? > http://flink.incubator.apache.org/docs/0.6-SNAPSHOT/building.html > > That's more benign, just helping people rebuild for certain distros if > desired. Can the example be generified to refer to a fictional "ACME > Distribution"? But a note here and there about gotchas building for > certain versions and combos seems reasonable. > > I also find this bit in the build script, although vendor-specific, is > a small nice convenience for users: > https://github.com/apache/incubator-flink/blob/master/pom.xml#L195 > Owen O'Malley <[email protected]> > August 15, 2014 at 11:01 > As a mentor, I agree that vendor specific packages aren't appropriate for > the Apache site. (Disclosure: I work at Hortonworks.) Working with the > vendors to make packages available is great, but they shouldn't be hosted > at Apache. > > .. Owen > > > > > -- > Sent with Postbox <http://www.getpostbox.com> > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity > to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately > and delete it from your system. Thank You. >
