Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop3 support target?

[Christopher]

I'm not certain what I'm supposed to be in disagreement with. I think
you've presented a fair assessment of the situation, and I agree with the
severity of the issue.

My comments in JIRA about shading not working was simply an observation
that we also need to consider the API breakage, which the shading wouldn't
fix.

If we're resigned to do the API breakage in 1.8, we can make that the
"bridge" version (supporting both Hadoop 2 and 3) by shading. Or, we can
wait until 2.0 and shade there to make that the "bridge" version (perhaps
even locking in a release timeline for 2.0... which hasn't seemed urgent
until now). Either way, shading seems the only way forward in order to
resolve this particular dependency issue.

The only other path I can see would be to not have a "bridge" version at
all and instead require upgrading Accumulo simultaneously with Hadoop. I
kind of like that option, but I don't think it's realistic for our
audiences, as it doesn't allow them to manage their upgrade risks, so the
shaded "bridge" version seems like the better option.

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:19 PM Josh Elser  wrote:

> Also, just to be clear for everyone else:
>
> This means that we have *no roadmap* at all for Hadoop 3 support because
> Accumulo 2.0 is in a state of languish.
>
> This is a severe enough problem to me that I would consider breaking API
> compatibility and fixing the API leak in 1.7/1.8. I'm curious what
> people other than Christopher think (assuming from his comments/JIRA
> work that he disagrees with me).
>
> On 12/4/17 6:12 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > Agreed.
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:01 PM Josh Elser  wrote:
> >
> >> Ah, I'm seeing now -- didn't check my inbox appropriately.
> >>
> >> I think the fact that code that we don't own has somehow been allowed to
> >> be public API is the smell. That's something that needs to be rectified
> >> sooner than later. By that measure, it can *only* land on Accumulo 2.0
> >> (which is going to be a major issue for the project).
> >>
> >> On 12/4/17 5:58 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
> >>> Sorry, I don't follow. Why do you think 4611/4753 is a show-stopper?
> >>> Cuz, uh... I made it work already :)
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the JIRA cleanup. Forgot about that one.
> >>>
> >>> On 12/4/17 5:55 PM, Christopher wrote:
>  I don't think we can support it with 1.8 or earlier, because of some
>  serious incompatibilities (namely, ACCUMULO-4611/4753)
>  I think people are still patching 1.7, so I don't think we've
>  "officially"
>  EOL'd it.
>  I think 2.0 could require Hadoop 3, if Hadoop 3 is sufficiently
> stable.
> 
>  On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:14 PM Josh Elser  wrote:
> 
> > What branch do we want to consider Hadoop3 support?
> >
> > There is a 3.0.0-beta1 release that's been out for a while, and
> Hadoop
> > PMC has already done a 3.0.0 RC0. I think it's the right time to
> start
> > considering this.
> >
> > In my poking so far, I've filed ACCUMULO-4753 which I'm working
> through
> > now. This does raise the question: where do we want to say we support
> > Hadoop3? 1.8 or 2.0? (have we "officially" deprecated 1.7?)
> >
> > - Josh
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4753
> >
> 
> >>
> >
>

RE: [DISCUSS] Hadoop3 support target?

[Dave Marion]

There is no reason that you can't mark the offending API methods as deprecated 
in a 1.8.x release, then immediately branch off of that to create a 2.0 and 
remove the method. Alternatively, we could decide to forego the semver rules 
for a specific release and make sure to point it out in the release notes.

-Original Message-
From: Josh Elser [mailto:els...@apache.org] 
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 6:19 PM
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop3 support target?

Also, just to be clear for everyone else:

This means that we have *no roadmap* at all for Hadoop 3 support because 
Accumulo 2.0 is in a state of languish.

This is a severe enough problem to me that I would consider breaking API 
compatibility and fixing the API leak in 1.7/1.8. I'm curious what people other 
than Christopher think (assuming from his comments/JIRA work that he disagrees 
with me).

On 12/4/17 6:12 PM, Christopher wrote:
> Agreed.
> 
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:01 PM Josh Elser  wrote:
> 
>> Ah, I'm seeing now -- didn't check my inbox appropriately.
>>
>> I think the fact that code that we don't own has somehow been allowed 
>> to be public API is the smell. That's something that needs to be 
>> rectified sooner than later. By that measure, it can *only* land on 
>> Accumulo 2.0 (which is going to be a major issue for the project).
>>
>> On 12/4/17 5:58 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
>>> Sorry, I don't follow. Why do you think 4611/4753 is a show-stopper?
>>> Cuz, uh... I made it work already :)
>>>
>>> Thanks for the JIRA cleanup. Forgot about that one.
>>>
>>> On 12/4/17 5:55 PM, Christopher wrote:
 I don't think we can support it with 1.8 or earlier, because of 
 some serious incompatibilities (namely, ACCUMULO-4611/4753) I think 
 people are still patching 1.7, so I don't think we've "officially"
 EOL'd it.
 I think 2.0 could require Hadoop 3, if Hadoop 3 is sufficiently stable.

 On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:14 PM Josh Elser  wrote:

> What branch do we want to consider Hadoop3 support?
>
> There is a 3.0.0-beta1 release that's been out for a while, and 
> Hadoop PMC has already done a 3.0.0 RC0. I think it's the right 
> time to start considering this.
>
> In my poking so far, I've filed ACCUMULO-4753 which I'm working 
> through now. This does raise the question: where do we want to say 
> we support Hadoop3? 1.8 or 2.0? (have we "officially" deprecated 
> 1.7?)
>
> - Josh
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4753
>

>>
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop3 support target?

[Josh Elser]

Also, just to be clear for everyone else:

This means that we have *no roadmap* at all for Hadoop 3 support because 
Accumulo 2.0 is in a state of languish.


This is a severe enough problem to me that I would consider breaking API 
compatibility and fixing the API leak in 1.7/1.8. I'm curious what 
people other than Christopher think (assuming from his comments/JIRA 
work that he disagrees with me).


On 12/4/17 6:12 PM, Christopher wrote:

Agreed.

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:01 PM Josh Elser  wrote:


Ah, I'm seeing now -- didn't check my inbox appropriately.

I think the fact that code that we don't own has somehow been allowed to
be public API is the smell. That's something that needs to be rectified
sooner than later. By that measure, it can *only* land on Accumulo 2.0
(which is going to be a major issue for the project).

On 12/4/17 5:58 PM, Josh Elser wrote:

Sorry, I don't follow. Why do you think 4611/4753 is a show-stopper?
Cuz, uh... I made it work already :)

Thanks for the JIRA cleanup. Forgot about that one.

On 12/4/17 5:55 PM, Christopher wrote:

I don't think we can support it with 1.8 or earlier, because of some
serious incompatibilities (namely, ACCUMULO-4611/4753)
I think people are still patching 1.7, so I don't think we've
"officially"
EOL'd it.
I think 2.0 could require Hadoop 3, if Hadoop 3 is sufficiently stable.

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:14 PM Josh Elser  wrote:


What branch do we want to consider Hadoop3 support?

There is a 3.0.0-beta1 release that's been out for a while, and Hadoop
PMC has already done a 3.0.0 RC0. I think it's the right time to start
considering this.

In my poking so far, I've filed ACCUMULO-4753 which I'm working through
now. This does raise the question: where do we want to say we support
Hadoop3? 1.8 or 2.0? (have we "officially" deprecated 1.7?)

- Josh

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4753

Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop3 support target?

[Christopher]

Agreed.

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:01 PM Josh Elser  wrote:

> Ah, I'm seeing now -- didn't check my inbox appropriately.
>
> I think the fact that code that we don't own has somehow been allowed to
> be public API is the smell. That's something that needs to be rectified
> sooner than later. By that measure, it can *only* land on Accumulo 2.0
> (which is going to be a major issue for the project).
>
> On 12/4/17 5:58 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
> > Sorry, I don't follow. Why do you think 4611/4753 is a show-stopper?
> > Cuz, uh... I made it work already :)
> >
> > Thanks for the JIRA cleanup. Forgot about that one.
> >
> > On 12/4/17 5:55 PM, Christopher wrote:
> >> I don't think we can support it with 1.8 or earlier, because of some
> >> serious incompatibilities (namely, ACCUMULO-4611/4753)
> >> I think people are still patching 1.7, so I don't think we've
> >> "officially"
> >> EOL'd it.
> >> I think 2.0 could require Hadoop 3, if Hadoop 3 is sufficiently stable.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:14 PM Josh Elser  wrote:
> >>
> >>> What branch do we want to consider Hadoop3 support?
> >>>
> >>> There is a 3.0.0-beta1 release that's been out for a while, and Hadoop
> >>> PMC has already done a 3.0.0 RC0. I think it's the right time to start
> >>> considering this.
> >>>
> >>> In my poking so far, I've filed ACCUMULO-4753 which I'm working through
> >>> now. This does raise the question: where do we want to say we support
> >>> Hadoop3? 1.8 or 2.0? (have we "officially" deprecated 1.7?)
> >>>
> >>> - Josh
> >>>
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4753
> >>>
> >>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop3 support target?

[Josh Elser]

Ah, I'm seeing now -- didn't check my inbox appropriately.

I think the fact that code that we don't own has somehow been allowed to 
be public API is the smell. That's something that needs to be rectified 
sooner than later. By that measure, it can *only* land on Accumulo 2.0 
(which is going to be a major issue for the project).


On 12/4/17 5:58 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
Sorry, I don't follow. Why do you think 4611/4753 is a show-stopper? 
Cuz, uh... I made it work already :)


Thanks for the JIRA cleanup. Forgot about that one.

On 12/4/17 5:55 PM, Christopher wrote:

I don't think we can support it with 1.8 or earlier, because of some
serious incompatibilities (namely, ACCUMULO-4611/4753)
I think people are still patching 1.7, so I don't think we've 
"officially"

EOL'd it.
I think 2.0 could require Hadoop 3, if Hadoop 3 is sufficiently stable.

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:14 PM Josh Elser  wrote:


What branch do we want to consider Hadoop3 support?

There is a 3.0.0-beta1 release that's been out for a while, and Hadoop
PMC has already done a 3.0.0 RC0. I think it's the right time to start
considering this.

In my poking so far, I've filed ACCUMULO-4753 which I'm working through
now. This does raise the question: where do we want to say we support
Hadoop3? 1.8 or 2.0? (have we "officially" deprecated 1.7?)

- Josh

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4753

Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop3 support target?

[Josh Elser]

Sorry, I don't follow. Why do you think 4611/4753 is a show-stopper? 
Cuz, uh... I made it work already :)


Thanks for the JIRA cleanup. Forgot about that one.

On 12/4/17 5:55 PM, Christopher wrote:

I don't think we can support it with 1.8 or earlier, because of some
serious incompatibilities (namely, ACCUMULO-4611/4753)
I think people are still patching 1.7, so I don't think we've "officially"
EOL'd it.
I think 2.0 could require Hadoop 3, if Hadoop 3 is sufficiently stable.

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:14 PM Josh Elser  wrote:


What branch do we want to consider Hadoop3 support?

There is a 3.0.0-beta1 release that's been out for a while, and Hadoop
PMC has already done a 3.0.0 RC0. I think it's the right time to start
considering this.

In my poking so far, I've filed ACCUMULO-4753 which I'm working through
now. This does raise the question: where do we want to say we support
Hadoop3? 1.8 or 2.0? (have we "officially" deprecated 1.7?)

- Josh

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4753

Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop3 support target?

[Christopher]

I don't think we can support it with 1.8 or earlier, because of some
serious incompatibilities (namely, ACCUMULO-4611/4753)
I think people are still patching 1.7, so I don't think we've "officially"
EOL'd it.
I think 2.0 could require Hadoop 3, if Hadoop 3 is sufficiently stable.

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:14 PM Josh Elser  wrote:

> What branch do we want to consider Hadoop3 support?
>
> There is a 3.0.0-beta1 release that's been out for a while, and Hadoop
> PMC has already done a 3.0.0 RC0. I think it's the right time to start
> considering this.
>
> In my poking so far, I've filed ACCUMULO-4753 which I'm working through
> now. This does raise the question: where do we want to say we support
> Hadoop3? 1.8 or 2.0? (have we "officially" deprecated 1.7?)
>
> - Josh
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4753
>

[DISCUSS] Hadoop3 support target?

[Josh Elser]

What branch do we want to consider Hadoop3 support?

There is a 3.0.0-beta1 release that's been out for a while, and Hadoop 
PMC has already done a 3.0.0 RC0. I think it's the right time to start 
considering this.


In my poking so far, I've filed ACCUMULO-4753 which I'm working through 
now. This does raise the question: where do we want to say we support 
Hadoop3? 1.8 or 2.0? (have we "officially" deprecated 1.7?)


- Josh

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4753