And I'll be more than happy to review it from the Mavenization perspective.
Thxs. Alejandro On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Alejandro Abdelnur <t...@cloudera.com>wrote: > Please, don't add more Mavenization work on us (eventually I want to go > back to coding) > > Given that Hadoop is already Mavenized, the patch should be Mavenized. > > What will have to be done extra (besides Mavenizing distcp) is to create a > hadoop-tools module at root level and within it a hadoop-distcp module. > > The hadoop-tools POM will look pretty much like the hadoop-common-project > POM. > > The hadoop-distcp POM should follow the hadoop-common POM patterns. > > Thanks. > > Alejandro > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Amareshwari Sri Ramadasu < > amar...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > >> Agree with Mithun and Robert. DistCp and Tools restructuring are separate >> tasks. Since DistCp code is ready to be committed, it need not wait for the >> Tools separation from MR/HDFS. >> I would say it can go into contrib as the patch is now, and when the tools >> restructuring happens it would be just an svn mv. If there are no issues >> with this proposal I can commit the code tomorrow. >> >> Thanks >> Amareshwari >> >> On 8/26/11 7:45 PM, "Robert Evans" <ev...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: >> >> I agree with Mithun. They are related but this goes beyond distcpv2 and >> should not block distcpv2 from going in. It would be very nice, however, to >> get the layout settled soon so that we all know where to find something when >> we want to work on it. >> >> Also +1 for Alejandro's I also prefer to keep tools at the trunk level. >> >> Even though HDFS, Common, and Mapreduce and perhaps soon tools are >> separate modules right now, there is still tight coupling between the >> different pieces, especially with tests. IMO until we can reduce that >> coupling we should treat building and testing Hadoop as a single project >> instead of trying to keep them separate. >> >> --Bobby >> >> On 8/26/11 7:45 AM, "Mithun Radhakrishnan" < >> mithun.radhakrish...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Would it be acceptable if retooling of tools/ were taken up separately? It >> sounds to me like this might be a distinct (albeit related) task. >> >> Mithun >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Giridharan Kesavan <gkesa...@hortonworks.com> >> To: mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org >> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 12:04 PM >> Subject: Re: DistCpV2 in 0.23 >> >> +1 to Alejandro's >> >> I prefer to keep the hadoop-tools at trunk level. >> >> -Giri >> >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur <t...@cloudera.com> >> wrote: >> > I'd suggest putting hadoop-tools either at trunk/ level or having a a >> tools >> > aggregator module for hdfs and other for common. >> > >> > I personal would prefer at trunk/. >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > Alejandro >> > >> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Amareshwari Sri Ramadasu < >> > amar...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Agree. It should be separate maven module (and patch puts it as >> separate >> >> maven module now). And top level for hadoop tools is nice to have, but >> it >> >> becomes hard to maintain until patch automation tests run the tests >> under >> >> tools. Currently we see many times the changes in HDFS effecting RAID >> tests >> >> in MapReduce. So, I'm fine putting the tools under hadoop-mapreduce. >> >> >> >> I propose we can have something like the following: >> >> >> >> trunk/ >> >> - hadoop-mapreduce >> >> - hadoop-mr-client >> >> - hadoop-yarn >> >> - hadoop-tools >> >> - hadoop-streaming >> >> - hadoop-archives >> >> - hadoop-distcp >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> @Eli and @JD, we did not replace old legacy distcp because this is >> really a >> >> complete rewrite and did not want to remove it until users are >> familiarized >> >> with new one. >> >> >> >> On 8/26/11 12:51 AM, "Todd Lipcon" <t...@cloudera.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Maybe a separate toplevel for hadoop-tools? Stuff like RAID could go >> >> in there as well - ie tools that are downstream of MR and/or HDFS. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Mahadev Konar < >> maha...@hortonworks.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > +1 for a seperate module in hadoop-mapreduce-project. I think >> >> > hadoop-mapreduce-client might not be right place for it. We might >> have >> >> > to pick a new maven module under hadoop-mapreduce-project that could >> >> > host streaming/distcp/hadoop archives. >> >> > >> >> > thanks >> >> > mahadev >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Alejandro Abdelnur < >> t...@cloudera.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> Agree, it should be a separate maven module. >> >> >> >> >> >> And it should be under hadoop-mapreduce-client, right? >> >> >> >> >> >> And now that we are in the topic, the same should go for streaming, >> no? >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> >> >> Alejandro >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Eli Collins <e...@cloudera.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> > Nice work! I definitely think this should go in 23 and 20x. >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > Agree with JD that it should be in the core code, not contrib. >> If >> >> >>> > it's going to be maintained then we should put it in the core >> code. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Now that we're all mavenized, though, a separate maven module and >> >> >>> artifact does make sense IMO - ie "hadoop jar >> >> >>> hadoop-distcp-0.23.0-SNAPSHOT" rather than "hadoop distcp" >> >> >>> >> >> >>> -Todd >> >> >>> -- >> >> >>> Todd Lipcon >> >> >>> Software Engineer, Cloudera >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Todd Lipcon >> >> Software Engineer, Cloudera >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> -Giri >> >> >> >
