I think we do a fairly good work maintaining a stable and public FileSystem and FileContext API for third-party plugins to exist outside of Apache Hadoop but still be able to work well across versions.
The question of test pops up though, specifically that of testing against trunk to catch regressions across various implementations, but it'd be much work for us to also maintain glusterfs dependencies and mechanisms as part of trunk. We do provide trunk build snapshot artifacts publicly for downstream projects to test against, which I think may help cover the continuous testing concerns, if there are those. Right now, I don't think the S3 FS we maintain really works all that well. I also recall, per recent conversations on the lists, that AMZN has started shipping their own library for a better implementation rather than perfecting the implementation we have here (correct me if am wrong but I think the changes were not all contributed back). I see some work going on for OpenStack's Swift, for which I think Steve also raised a similar discussion here: http://search-hadoop.com/m/W1S5h2SrxlG, but I don't recall if the conversation proceeded at the time. What's your perspective as the releaser though? Would you not find maintaining this outside easier, especially in terms of maintaining your code for quicker releases, for both bug fixes and features - also given that you can CI it against Apache Hadoop trunk at the same time? On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Stephen Watt <sw...@redhat.com> wrote: > (Resending - I think the first time I sent this out it got lost within all > the ByLaws voting) > > Hi Folks > > My name is Steve Watt and I am presently working on enabling glusterfs to > be used as a Hadoop FileSystem. Most of the work thus far has involved > developing a Hadoop FileSystem plugin for glusterfs. I'm getting to the > point where the plugin is becoming stable and I've been trying to > understand where the right place is to host/manage/version it. > > Steve Loughran was kind enough to point out a few past threads in the > community (such as > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Need-to-add-fs-shim-to-use-QFS-td4012118.html) > that show a project disposition to move away from Hadoop Common containing > client code (plugins) for 3rd party FileSystems. This makes sense and > allows the filesystem plugin developer more autonomy as well as reduces > Hadoop Common's dependence on 3rd Party libraries. > > Before I embark down that path, can the PMC/Committers verify that the > preference is still to have client code for 3rd Party FileSystems hosted > and managed outside of Hadoop Common? > > Regards > Steve Watt > -- Harsh J
