On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Allen Wittenauer <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jun 14, 2011, at 5:48 PM, Eli Collins wrote: >> In short, an Apache Hadoop release with a backport of PMC approved >> code or critical security fix is not powered by Hadoop, it is Hadoop, >> while a new product that contains or runs atop Hadoop is powered by >> Hadoop. >> >> Reasonable? > > I'd say: Security, yes. Features, no. > > The reason I say this is because there have been many, many, many > posts in the -user mailing lists where people are confused as to what > versions have what features because their local branch has a back ported fix. > [I think I run out of fingers if I count how many times just the > mapred.map.child.java.opts was said to be "in 20" prior to the 0.20.203 > release...] > > This also adds pressure to do timely releases. :) >
I agree this is a problem, I don't think this is an effective means of solving it. Are we really going to go after all the web companies that patch in an enhancement to their current Hadoop build and tell them to stop saying that they are using Hadoop? You've patched Hadoop many times, should your employer not be able to say they use Hadoop? I'm -1 on a proposal that does this. Thanks, Eli
