Hi Torsten,

Let me ask the question a different way - are you ok +1 this release or
do you feel that release instructions and hadoop cleanup needs to happen
first.

Re-rolling packages is not a problem but getting everybody's attention
proved to be fairly time consuming.

Thanks,

Olga 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Torsten Curdt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 12:22 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Pig 0.1.0 (candidate 3)
> 
> 
> On Jul 29, 2008, at 00:23, Olga Natkovich wrote:
> 
> >> Well, the idea of incubation is to gather a community (besides the 
> >> legal aspect). I would suggest to at least provide more detailed 
> >> instruction how to get the things working in the wiki. Or 
> did I miss 
> >> those?
> >
> > I was going to put instructions into the release notes once the 
> > release is ready.
> 
> IMO this should be part of the release process so the 
> instructions can be tested as well.
> 
> >>>> Why are both hadoop 0.16 and 0.17 included?
> >>>
> >>> The idea was that people can build with 1 version back.
> >>
> >> That sounds like a good idea ..at least in theory :)
> >>
> >>> However, at this
> >>> point it is not possible since hadoop interfaces change
> >> between each
> >>> version. We can remove hadoop16 I think. Do we need to do
> >> this cleanup
> >>> prior to the release?
> >>
> >> It's a bit awkward to have 0.16 in there if you cannot use 
> it at all.
> >
> > Ok. It just if we have to reroll the packages and start 
> process over 
> > one more time. I was wondering if this was worth starting over.
> 
> That's really up to you guys. If you have the release 
> procedure properly automated I'd say: do it.
> 
> >> (That said I was about to send a question to the dev list 
> about using
> >> 0.16 with pig. I need to get it working with 0.16. Will that be a 
> >> major hurdle? But let's discuss that in another thread)
> >
> > It is possible, but you would have to take pre hadoop-17 
> snapshot of 
> > the code. It is quite stable but you would be missing out 
> on the work 
> > that has been done since.
> 
> 
> Bugger I was hoping to see a tag for it. Which revision would that be?
> 
> cheers
> --
> Torsten
> 
> 

Reply via email to