I agree we should support 0.20.2 in this case. There is significant community need and it is a small and easy change it seems. That said, if we're going to stop the release candidate for this, we need a patch right away so that we can have a new release candidate immediately. Does someone have a patch ready?
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Kai Londenberg wrote: > Hi, > > I stronly agree with Jonathan here. If there are good reasons why you > can't support an older version of Hadoop any more, that's one thing. > But having to change 2 lines of code doesn't really qualify as such in > my point of view ;) > > At least for me, pig support for 0.20.2 is essential - without it, I > can't use it. If it doesn't support it, I'll have to branch pig and > hack it myself, or stop using it. > > I guess, there are a lot of people still running 0.20.2 Clusters. If > you really have lots of data stored on HDFS and a continuously busy > cluster, an upgrade is nothing you do "just because". > > > 2013/2/20 Jonathan Coveney <[email protected] <javascript:;>>: > > I agree that we shouldn't have to support old versions forever. That > said, > > I also don't think we should be too blase about supporting older versions > > where it is not odious to do so. We have a lot of competition in the > > language space and the broader the versions we can support, the better > > (assuming it isn't too odious to do so). In this case, I don't think it > > should be too hard to change ObjectSerializer so that the commons-codec > > code used is compatible with both versions...we could just in-line some > of > > the Base64 code, and comment accordingly. > > > > That said, we also should be clear about what versions we support, but > 6-12 > > months seems short. The upgrade cycles on Hadoop are really, really long. > > > > > > 2013/2/20 Prashant Kommireddi <[email protected]> > > > >> Agreed, that makes sense. Probably supporting older hadoop version for > a 1 > >> or 2 pig releases before moving to a newer/stable version? > >> > >> Having said that, should we use 0.11 period to communicate the same to > the > >> community and start moving on 0.12 onwards? I know we are way past 6-12 > >> months (1-2 release) time frame with 0.20.2, but we also need to make > sure > >> users are aware and plan accordingly. > >> > >> I'd also be interested to hear how other projects (Hive, Oozie) are > >> handling this. > >> > >> -Prashant > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Olga Natkovich <[email protected] > >> >wrote: > >> > >> > 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 <[email protected]> > >> > To: [email protected] > >> > 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 < > >> [email protected] > >> > >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 <[email protected]> > >> > 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 th
