Hi Wei-Chiu, I am glad this activity finally made it to the dev mailing list. Just sharing the context being the guy who actually reverted this last time it was in: It had a test failure on the PR itself and it went in, that had nothing to do with the nature of the PR, generic for all PR and all projects.
Some thoughts & Questions? * Regarding this entire activity including the parent tickets: Do we have any dev list agreement for this? * What incompatibilities have been introduced till now for this and what are planned. * What does this activity bring up for the downstream folks adapting this? Upgrading Hadoop is indeed important for a lot of projects and for "us as well" and it is already a big pain (my past experience) * What tests have been executed verifying all these changes including this and the ones already in, apart from the Jenkins results, and what's the plan. * Considering you are heavily involved, any insights around perf stuff? * This Comment [https://github.com/apache/hadoop/pull/5503#discussion_r1199614640], this says it isn't moving all the instances? So, when do you plan to work on this? Should that be a release blocker for us, since part of the activity is in? Needless to say: "Best Effort, whatever could move in, moves is, isn't an answer" * The above comment thread even says losing some available abilities, even some past one said so, what all is getting compromised, and how do you plan to get it back? Most of the lost abilities are related to HDFS, I don't think we are in a state to lose stuff there, if we aren't having enough to make people adapt. Our ultimate goal isn't to have something in, but to make people use it. * What advantages do we get with all of these activities over existing branch-3 stuff? Considering what are the trade-offs, Was discussing with some folks offline & that seems to be a good question to have an answer beforehand. PS. Most of the time when this entire activity breaks & like usual we are on a follow-up or on an addendum PR, there is generally some sarcastic or a response like: 'We can't do it without breaking things', and I am not taking any of these for now. Most importantly since we are discussing it now and if there are incompatibilities introduced already, is there a possible way out and get rid of them, if not, if there ain't an agreement, how tough is going back, because if it introduces incompatibilities for HDFS, you won't get an agreement most probably, not sure about others but I will veto that... TLDR, Please hold unless all the concerns are addressed and we have an agreement for this as well as anything done in past or planned for future, Shouldn't compromise the adaptability of the product at any cost -Ayush On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 at 03:47, Wei-Chiu Chuang <weic...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > I am preparing to resolve HADOOP-18207 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-18207> ( > https://github.com/apache/hadoop/pull/5717). > > This change affects all modules. With this change, it will eliminate almost > all the direct log4j usage. > > As always, landing such a big piece is tricky. I am sorry for the mishaps > last time and am doing more due diligence to make it a smoother transition. > I am triggering one last precommit check. Once the change is merged, Viraj > and I will pay attention to any potential problems. > > Weichiu --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org
