The release is one issue, but ongoing maintenance of it is another, which is the point roy raised.
It's a concern if we have a security issue, and who will patch it (and test it) going forward. --- Ian Holsman - 703 879-3128 I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free -- Michelangelo On 24/12/2010, at 9:39 AM, Ryan Rawson <[email protected]> wrote: > How does stack volunteering his time to release an existing branch > divert resources? > > Without an ASF release of 0.20-append I will keep having to recommend > an external vendor's release of Hadoop. > > > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Konstantin Shvachko > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I also think building 0.20-append will be a major distraction from moving >> 0.22 forward with all the great new features, including the new append >> implementation, sitting on the bench because we are delaying the release. >> It seems to be beneficial for the entire community to focus on 0.22 rather >> than chasing both birds. >> >> I hear a concern that 0.22 will lack large scale testing as was the case >> with 0.21. >> I'd like to volunteer to put as many large scale resources, as I can grasp, >> into stabilizing of 0.22. Under Nigel's management of course. >> This should get us to production quality in 3-6 months rather than >> "another 12-15". I also hope it can go even faster/better if others >> could join the effort. I see > 100 companies claiming they are powered by >> Apache Hadoop. >> >> I also hope with this effort HBase will be able to start moving to the new >> append implementation in the next 2-3 months, which in turn will help 0.22 >> HDFS >> rather than divert resources from it as it would have be with 0.20-append. >> >> Stack, will this plan will work for HBase survival? >> >> One other thought. Apache Hadoop community is not in control of external >> releases and distributions, but we should not fork our own releases by >> introducing >> competing apis. If we can keep the dev line relatively straight the external >> releases >> will follow. >> >> Thanks, >> --Konstantin >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Ryan Rawson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The append solution in 0.22 that you are referring to was supposed to >>> be out 13-15 months ago. Pardon if I look for solutions that deploy 4 >>> months ago (as the 0.20 append branch did). >>> >>> Another 12-15 months of delay is not exactly helping HDFS either. >>> >>> -ryan >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Jakob Homan <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> It's difficult to support this proposal knowing how much time would be >>>> spent preparing an official release, continuing to support it and >>>> continuing to two support two separate implementations of append. I >>>> believe that effort would be better spent getting out a kick-ass 22 >>>> (or, barring that, a *really* kick-ass 23). >>>> >>>> The Promised Land that we say we're all trying to get to is regular, >>>> timely, feature-complete, tested, innovative but stable releases of >>>> new versions of Apache Hadoop. Missing out any one of those criteria >>>> discovered will continue (and has continued) the current situation >>>> where quasi-official branches and outside distributions fill the void >>>> such a release should. The effort to maintain this offical branch and >>>> fix the bugs that will be discovered could be better spent moving us >>>> closer to that goal. >>>> >>>> I'm certainly sympathetic to the difficult position our quagmire has >>>> placed HBase into. However, the current proposal would hurt HDFS to >>>> help HBase. The best solution for that project, as well as for HDFS, >>>> is to get HDFS back to a healthy release cycle; not prolong or codify >>>> the current ad-hoc state of affairs. Let's stop digging this hole. >>>> -jakob >>>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:33 AM, M. C. Srivas <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>> [ Sorry if this is be-laboring the obvious ] >>>>> >>>>> There are two append solutions floating around, and they are >>> incompatible >>>>> with each other. Thus, the two "branches" will forever remain >>> incompatible >>>>> with each other, regardless of how they are numbered (0.22, 0.23, >>> 0.20.3, >>>>> e.t.c.) >>>>> >>>>> Unless both are merged into one branch, and a switch provided to "use >>>>> HDFS-200 append" or "use 0.22 append", we have effectively split Hadoop >>> into >>>>> two. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Owen O'Malley <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Roy T. Fielding <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Features are not release version tags. If there is a security bug >>>>>>> found then we would have to release a new version of the append >>>>>>> version, and a round of severe trout slapping would result. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, it isn't a perfect solution and it doesn't scale to a second tag, >>> but >>>>>> the problem is that this is effectively a release branch between 0.20 >>> and >>>>>> 0.21. Of course I agree that any critical bugs would need to be fixed >>> in >>>>>> the >>>>>> append branch as well as the 0.20 and 0.21 branches. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want to stick to pure numbers and we want to leave ourselves a >>> way >>>>>> to >>>>>> bugfix the 0.20 branch without append, we'd could use a version string >>> like >>>>>> 0.20.100, etc. Not pretty, but it does preserve the numeric ordering >>> and >>>>>> suggest a version jump. >>>>>> >>>>>> If I remember right, there were also protocol changes in the append >>> branch, >>>>>> which was another reason we didn't want to put it directly into the >>> 0.20 >>>>>> branch. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Owen >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
