Just to be clear, we are talking about adding profile support to the pom's for Hadoop 2.2.0 for a 1.4.5 and 1.5.1 release, correct? We are not talking about changing the default build profile for these branches are we?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Billie Rinaldi" <billie.rina...@gmail.com> To: dev@accumulo.apache.org Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 11:57:40 PM Subject: Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch Thanks for the note, Ted. That vote is for 2.2.0, not -beta. On Oct 14, 2013 7:30 PM, "Ted Yu" <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > w.r.t. hadoop-2 release, see this thread: > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/YSTny19y1Ha1/hadoop+2.2.0 > > Looks like 2.2.0-beta would pass votes. > > Cheers > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote: > > > Responses Inline. > > > > - Mike > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hey All, > > > > > > I'd like to restart the conversation from end July / start August about > > > Hadoop 2 support on the 1.4 branch. > > > > > > Specifically, I'd like to get some requirements ironed out so I can > file > > > one or more jiras. I'd also like to get a plan for application. > > > > > > =requirements > > > > > > Here's the requirements I have from the last thread: > > > > > > 1) Maintain existing 1.4 compatibility > > > > > > The only thing I see listed in the pom is Apache release 0.20.203.0. > > (1.4.4 > > > tag)[1] > > > > > > I don't see anything in the README[2] nor the user manual[3] on other > > > versions being supported. > > > > > > Yep. > > > > > > > 2) Gain Hadoop 2 support > > > > > > At the moment, I'm presuming this means Apache release 2.0.4-alpha > since > > > that's what 1.5.0 builds against for Hadoop 2. > > > > > > I haven't been following the Hadoop 2 release schedule that closely, > but > > I > > think the latest is a 2.1.0-beta? Pretty sure it was released after we > > finished Accumulo 1.5, so there's no reason not to support it in my mind. > > Depending on an "alpha" of something strikes me as either unstable or > lazy, > > although I fully understand that it may be neither. > > > > > > > 3) Test for correctness on given versions, with >= 5 node cluster > > > > > > * Unit Tests > > > * Functional Tests > > > * 24hr continuous + verification > > > * 24hr continuous + verification + agitation > > > * 24hr random walk > > > * 24hr random walk + agitation > > > > > > Keith mentioned running these against a CDH4 cluster, but I presume > that > > > since Apache Releases are our stated compatibilities it would actually > be > > > against whatever versions we list. Based on #1 and #2 above, I would > > expect > > > that to be Apache Hadoop 0.20.203.0 and Apache Hadoop 2.0.4-alpha. > > > > > > Hadoop 2 introduces some neat new things like NN HA, which I think it > > might be worthwhile to test with. At that level it might be more of a > > verification of the Hadoop code, but I'd like to be comfortable that our > > DFS Clients switch correctly. This is in addition to the standard release > > suite that we run. [1] > > > > [1]: http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html#testing > > > > > > > 4) Binary packaging > > > 4a) Either source produces a single binary for all accepted versions > > > > > > or > > > > > > 4b) Instructions for building from source for each versions and somehow > > > flag what (if any) convenience binaries are made for the release. > > > > > > > > Having run the binary packaging for 1.4.4, I can tell you that it is not > in > > great shape. Christopher cleaned up a lot of the issues in the 1.5 line, > so > > I didn't bother spending a ton of time on them here, but I think RPM and > > DEB are both broken. It would be nice to be able to specify a Hadoop 2 > > version for compilation, similar to what happens in the newer code base, > > which could be back ported, I suppose. 4b seems easier. > > > > =application > > > > > > There will be many back-ported patches. Not much active development > > happens > > > on 1.4.x now, but I presume this should still all go onto a feature > > branch? > > > > > > Is the community preference that eventually all the changes become a > > single > > > commit (or one-per-subtask if there are multiple jiras) on the active > 1.4 > > > development branch, or that the original patches remain broken out? > > > > > > Not sure what you mean by this. > > > > > > > For what it's worth, I'd recommend keeping them broken out. (And that's > > how > > > the initial development against CDH4 has been done.) > > > > > > > > > [1] http://bit.ly/1fxucMe > > > [2] http://bit.ly/192zUAJ > > > [3] > > > > > > http://accumulo.apache.org/1.4/user_manual/Administration.html#Dependencies > > > > > > -- > > > Sean > > > > > >
