Alright, I totally agree. Thanks for putting it that way. -Jay
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Imran M Yousuf <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > I feel the same. From following HBase seeing its releases depending > directly on Hadoop release gets me thinking... > > Best regards, > > Imran > > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Tom White <[email protected]> wrote: > > Eclipse does big bang releases of multiple components, but I believe > > it requires a huge amount of coordination and planning. Instead, I > > think the direction Hadoop should move in is to stabilize and clearly > > demarcate its core filesystem and MapReduce interfaces, so that > > projects like HBase, Pig, and Hive can run against multiple versions > > of core. Their release cycles are already largely decoupled from core, > > so the question about whether they become TLPs is more to do with > > project governance than with release coordination. > > > > Cheers, > > Tom > > > > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Jay Booth <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Not sure exactly what I meant by "1.0 of what", "Hadoop" I guess, I was > >> trying to address the concerns raised, which I share -- Alan's concern > is > >> that if the projects are completely separate from each other, that might > >> decrease visibility as to the demands they're placing on each other when > >> integrated, and St.Ack mentioned the frankenstein factor which I think > we've > >> all felt some pain from, and which may get worse after the project > split. > >> What's the standard way to deploy the three, even? Is there one? > >> > >> If the PMCs jointly maintained some sort of 'stable integrated build' > which > >> took in new releases from the TLPs as they were released after a soak > >> period, it could provide a common touchstone that bugs could be tested > >> against and cross-component patches delivered against, potentially > >> increasing visibility of cross-component issues while providing a less > >> cobbled-together system to administrate. On the other side, though, if > >> executed wrong, you'd be creating a committee of committees and possibly > >> undoing some of the benefits of going TLP in the first place, especially > if > >> politics heat up over what goes into the 'standard' build. I think it > could > >> be viable though. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Arun C Murthy <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> On Apr 8, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Jay Booth wrote: > >>> > >>> What if the projects were: > >>>> > >>>> A) split out to TLPs because they do seem to have reached that level > of > >>>> individual community > >>>> > >>>> but, > >>>> > >>>> B) The projects could somehow jointly put out an integrated build > >>>> containing the above projects and let users run whatever they want out > of > >>>> it? > >>>> > >>>> That would require a lot of coordination but would make a heck of a > 1.0 > >>>> release, > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1.0 release of what? > >>> > >>> Arun > >>> > >> > > > > > > -- > Imran M Yousuf > Entrepreneur & Software Engineer > Smart IT Engineering > Dhaka, Bangladesh > Email: [email protected] > Blog: http://imyousuf-tech.blogs.smartitengineering.com/ > Mobile: +880-1711402557 >
