On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Ryan Rawson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > But surely for logical consistency, we should not favor one vendor (as > > we have been for a year now), over another. So would it be correct to > > continue to suggest to users they use CDH? After all, even though it > > is ASF2.0 and free, it is still giving one vendor a leg up over others > > (including hortonworks, the ASF project, etc). > > > > Most of the time that we suggest CDH, we also say that you could run the > 0.20-append branch from the ASF. If Hortonworks had a free Apache 2.0 > licensed release that worked well with HBase we could recommend that, too. > I > wouldn't have a problem with any of the above. > My only test for these would be something that helps hbase users. It definitely helps to know about Apache branches, CDH and MapR. As soon as Apache and/or Hortonworks have a viable release for hbase, then they ought to be on the list. With a short list, I don't think order matters. If we get more than half a dozen vendors (or orgs) then it might start to matter.
