Its been a while since there's been a peep out of this thread so I'll now move this topic to a vote.
Thanks to all who contributed to the discussion. St.Ack On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Jay Booth <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >
