Regarding Pig 11 rc2, I propose we continue with the current vote as is (which closes today EOD). Patches for 0.20.2 issues can be rolled into a Pig 0.11.1 release whenever they're available and tested.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Olga Natkovich <onatkov...@yahoo.com>wrote: > I agree that supporting as much as we can is a good goal. The issue is who > is going to be testing against all these versions? We found the issues > under discussion because of a customer report, not because we consistently > test against all versions. Perhaps when we decide which versions to support > for next release we need also to agree who is going to be testing and > maintaining compatibility with a particular version. > > For instance since Hadoop 23 compatibility is important for us at Yahoo we > have been maintaining compatibility with this version for 0.9, 0.10 and > will do the same for 0.11 and going forward. I think we would need others > to step in and claim the versions of their interest. > > Olga > > > ________________________________ > From: Kai Londenberg <kai.londenb...@googlemail.com> > To: dev@pig.apache.org > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:51 AM > Subject: Re: pig 0.11 candidate 2 feedback: Several problems > > 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 <jcove...@gmail.com>: > > 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 <prash1...@gmail.com> > > > >> 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 <onatkov...@yahoo.com > >> >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 <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 > >> > > > >> > > >> > -- *Note that I'm no longer using my Yahoo! email address. Please email me at billgra...@gmail.com going forward.*
