+1.
| Thoughts/Inputs/Discussion from Pig/Hive/Flink/Scalding/Scope communities?
Thanks, Rohini/Gopal/Gunther

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Rohini Palaniswamy <roh...@apache.org>
wrote:

> +1. I don't see a problem for Pig as this is being done mainly for the
> hadoop dependencies conflict and there are no API changes in Tez. At least
> till we get to the point where we introduce Hadoop 3 specific code into
> Tez, Pig compiled with older versions of Tez will continue to run with Tez
> master.
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 5:33 PM, Gopal Vijayaraghavan <gop...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Gopal
> >
> >
> > ´╗┐On 4/12/18, 5:22 PM, "Eric Wohlstadter" <wohls...@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
> >
> >     Just a friendly reminder that this vote is still open.
> >
> >     On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Jason Lowe <jl...@oath.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >     > There was a discussion thread that was started two weeks before the
> >     > vote thread, see
> >     > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/tez-dev/201803.
> mbox/browser
> > .
> >     > Granted there weren't many comments, but there was a discussion
> > thread
> >     > with no voiced objections well in advance of the vote thread.
> >     >
> >     > Jason
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Jonathan Eagles <
> jeag...@gmail.com
> > >
> >     > wrote:
> >     > > Thoughts/Inputs/Discussion from Pig/Hive/Flink/Scalding/Scope
> >     > communities?
> >     > >
> >     > > I wish we had used a discussion thread to gather more input from
> >     > > Pig/Hive/Flink/Scalding/Scope community before starting this vote
> > whose
> >     > > outcome affects them. Without discussion or votes from those
> > communities
> >     > > I'm not sure the community support for this decision. Should we
> > consider
> >     > > canceling this vote to gather input first?
> >     > >
> >     > > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:09 AM, Kuhu Shukla
> > <kshu...@oath.com.invalid>
> >     > > wrote:
> >     > >
> >     > >> +1.
> >     > >>
> >     > >> Thank you Eric for floating the proposal.
> >     > >>
> >     > >> Regards,
> >     > >> Kuhu
> >     > >>
> >     > >> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Jason Lowe
> <jl...@oath.com.invalid
> > >
> >     > wrote:
> >     > >>
> >     > >> > +1
> >     > >> >
> >     > >> > Jason
> >     > >> >
> >     > >> > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Eric Wohlstadter <
> > wohls...@cs.ubc.ca>
> >     > >> > wrote:
> >     > >> > > Please vote (binding or unbinding) on the following
> proposal.
> > The
> >     > vote
> >     > >> > will
> >     > >> > > be open until 3pm (Pacific) April 13th.
> >     > >> > >
> >     > >> > >
> >     > >> > > Proposal: Move master to support minimum Hadoop 3+ (0.10.x
> > line) and
> >     > >> > create
> >     > >> > > separate branch for Hadoop 2 (0.9.x line)
> >     > >> > >
> >     > >> > >
> >     > >> > > Details:
> >     > >> > >
> >     > >> > >
> >     > >> > >
> >     > >> > >    - Tez master branch would support only Hadoop 3+ moving
> > forward
> >     > >> > >
> >     > >> > >
> >     > >> > >    - As a general policy, Maven dependencies on master are
> > required
> >     > not
> >     > >> > to
> >     > >> > >    have conflicts with the dependencies of the corresponding
> > minimum
> >     > >> > >    supported Hadoop (the dependency versions can vary
> between
> > Tez
> >     > >> master
> >     > >> > and
> >     > >> > >    Hadoop if the versions are advertised as compatible by
> the
> >     > >> dependency
> >     > >> > >    provider).
> >     > >> > >
> >     > >> > >    - As a general policy, dependency conflicts between Tez
> and
> >     > Hadoop
> >     > >> > >    should be resolved by using compatible jars.
> Shims/Shading
> > could
> >     > be
> >     > >> > used on
> >     > >> > >    a case-by-case basis, but not as a general policy.
> >     > >> > >
> >     > >> > >
> >     > >> > >    - A separate branch and distribution (e.g. on Maven
> > Central)
> >     > will be
> >     > >> > >    created to maintain the 0.9.x line with minumum support
> for
> >     > Hadoop
> >     > >> > 2.7.x
> >     > >> > >
> >     > >> > >
> >     > >> > >
> >     > >> > >    - Bug fixes would be required to be pushed to both to
> > master and
> >     > the
> >     > >> > >    0.9.x line (unless they are specific to one of them)
> >     > >> > >
> >     > >> > >
> >     > >> > >
> >     > >> > >    - Major feature or performance improvements would be
> > required to
> >     > be
> >     > >> > >    pushed to both master and the 0.9.x line (unless they
> > require
> >     > Hadoop
> >     > >> > 3+ or
> >     > >> > >    have dependent library conflicts with Hadoop 2.x, in
> which
> > case
> >     > they
> >     > >> > may be
> >     > >> > >    pushed only to master)
> >     > >> > >
> >     > >> > >
> >     > >> > >
> >     > >> > >    - Minor feature or performance improvements can be pushed
> > only to
> >     > >> > master
> >     > >> >
> >     > >>
> >     >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to