It seems that for each Pig release we need to agree and clearly state which Hadoop versions it will support. I guess the main question is how we decide on this. Perhaps we should say that Pig no longer supports older Hadoop versions once the newer one is out for at least 6-12 month to make sure it is stable. I don't think we can support old versions indefinitely. It is in everybody's interest to keep moving forward.
Olga ________________________________ From: Prashant Kommireddi <prash1...@gmail.com> To: dev@pig.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:57 AM Subject: Re: pig 0.11 candidate 2 feedback: Several problems What do you guys feel about the JIRA to do with 0.20.2 compatibility (PIG-3194)? I am interested in discussing the strategy around backward compatibility as this is something that would haunt us each time we move to the next hadoop version. For eg, we might be in a similar situation while moving to Hadoop 2.0, when some of the stuff might break for 1.0. I feel it would be good to get this JIRA fix in for 0.11, as 0.20.2 users might be caught unaware. Of course, I must admit there is selfish interest here and it's probably easier for us to have a workaround on Pig rather than upgrade hadoop in all our production DCs. -Prashant On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Russell Jurney <russell.jur...@gmail.com>wrote: > I think someone should step up and fix the easy ones, if possible. > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Bill Graham <billgra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks Kai for reporting these. > > > > What do people think about the severity of these issues w.r.t. Pig 11? I > > see a few possible options: > > > > 1. We include some or all of these patches in a new Pig 11 rc. We'd want > to > > make sure that they don't destabilize the current branch. This approach > > makes sense if we think Pig 11 wouldn't be a good release without one or > > more of these included. > > > > 2. We continue with the Pig 11 release without these, but then include > one > > or more in a 0.11.1 release. > > > > 3. We continue with the Pig 11 release without these, but then include > them > > in a 0.12 release. > > > > Jon has a patch for the MAP issue > > (PIG-3144<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-3144>) > > ready, which seems like the most pressing of the three to me. > > > > thanks, > > Bill > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Kai Londenberg < > > kai.londenb...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I just subscribed to the dev mailing list in order to give you some > > > feedback on pig 0.11 candidate 2. > > > > > > The following three issues are currently present in 0.11 candidate 2: > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-3144 - 'Erroneous map entry > > > alias resolution leading to "Duplicate schema alias" errors' > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-3194 - Changes to > > > ObjectSerializer.java break compatibility with Hadoop 0.20.2 > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-3195 - Race Condition in > > > PhysicalOperator leads to ExecException "Error while trying to get > > > next result in POStream" > > > > > > The last two of these are easily solveable (see the tickets for > > > details on that). The first one is a bit trickier I think, but at > > > least there is a workaround for it (pass Map fields through an UDF) > > > > > > In my personal opinion, each of these problems is pretty severe, but > > > opinions about the importance of the MAP Datatype and STREAM Operator, > > > as well as Hadoop 0.20.2 compatibility might differ. > > > > > > so far .. > > > > > > Kai Londenberg > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > *Note that I'm no longer using my Yahoo! email address. Please email me > at > > billgra...@gmail.com going forward.* > > > > > > -- > Russell Jurney twitter.com/rjurney russell.jur...@gmail.com > datasyndrome.com >
