Hi, just my 2 cents.
I think the issue here is not 1.0 vs 0.10, but what's the versioning scheme we want to use for Pig. Up to now it has been just an increasing number after a '0.' prefix, changed when the community felt it was time. I think this works well for a small project, but it is somewhat fuzzy. I like the idea of having <major>.<minor>.<patch> versions like many other projects. It's a very clear and almost standard way of versioning a piece of software. It has clear rules on when to change each of the numbers, and lets the user get an idea of backward compatibility at a glance. So, to conclude, I am in favor of going 1.0 (or 1.0.0) as long as we decide a clear versioning policy (whichever it is). So that the 1.0 milestone would mark the beginning of our new policy. Cheers, -- Gianmarco On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 23:10, <[email protected]> wrote: > If one were to rewrite input and output formats to use the webhdfs:// > APIs, this would not be an issue, right ? > > - milind > > > On 10/21/11 1:50 PM, "Santhosh Srinivasan" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >If I was not clear in my earlier email, I apologize for the lack of > >clarity. I am no longer in favour of waiting for Hadoop API stability > >across Hadoop versions. It's a pipe dream. > > > >When we had PigInputFormat and PigOutputFormat, your reasoning would be > >spot on. I am concerned about the following. Our tight integration with > >Hadoop due to the use of Input and Output format might lead to a break in > >backward compatibility. I am not sure if the comparison with that of Java > >is valid. Probably a majority of the users don't use JNI. Its very hard > >to use Pig without writing custom load and store functions. The default > >load and store don't suffice for a majority of use cases that I have > >observed. > > > >I am trying to get all factors that might influence this decision. From > >the few emails that have been exchanged since yesterday, we have the > >following factors: > > > >1. Hadoop 0.20.205 (support for Append) > >2. Hadoop 0.22 > >3. Hadoop 0.23 > >4. Maturity of the new parser > >5. Stability of the new logical plan > >6. Other components in the eco system. > > - Avro (1.5.4, 1.4.1, ...) > > - Cassandra (1.0.0, 0.8.7, ...) > > - Chukwa (0.4.0, 0.3.0, ...) > > - Hama (0.3.0, 0.2.0, ...) > > - Hbase (0.90.4, 0.90.3, 0.90.2, 0.90.1, ...) > > - Hive (Releases - 0.7.1, 0.7.0, 0.6.0, ...) > > - Zookeeper (3.3.3, 3.3.2, 3.2.2, 3.1.2, ...) > > > >Santhosh > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Thejas Nair [mailto:[email protected]] > >Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 11:22 AM > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: Next Pig release proposal > > > > > >Santosh, > >I thought you meant API stability for hadoop across major versions, but I > >guess you are referring to stability within 0.23 versions. But argument > >applies to that as well, if 0.23.1 is not compatible with 0.23.0, we need > >to call the release for 0.23.1 as 'pig 1.x for 0.23.1 api' . > > > >We just need to communicate to the users that the > >InputFormat/OutputFormat api's (and any anything else we expose from > >hadoop) depends on the hadoop version they are using. > > > >I think it is just like different JNI libraries that you would write for > >different OS. But the java version remains the same across OSs. > > > >-Thejas > > > > > >On 10/21/11 10:59 AM, Santhosh Srinivasan wrote: > >> Thejas, > >> > >> I guess you did not read my email completely. You are referring to the > >>premise without examining the conclusion. I am repasting my entire email > >>to avoid confusion (I hate truncated references). If you could respond > >>again, it will bring us onto the same page. > >> > >> <email> > >> > >> Ref: http://tinyurl.com/4ng8upa (last discussion on 1.0) > >> > >> How far have we progressed from our last discussion in March. There was > >>no consensus on the 1.0 release. Opinions ranged from having more > >>releases to bake in the maturity of the new parser and logical plan > >>changes to compatibility with Hadoop API (was compared to Social > >>Security - a very hot topic these days). > >> > >> My concerns were around Hadoop API stability. I have heard that the > >>APIs will not be stable for at least 1 year. This is taking me away from > >>the Hadoop API stability factor (They passed healthcare in that > >>duration. Really!) Do we want compatibility with 0.23 as a gating factor > >>- not sure if this is anywhere close to getting done in the near future. > >>Will we support append (0.20.205)? > >> > >> Btw, Hbase has been doing 0.90.1, 0.90.2, etc. So we can take a look at > >>this option too. > >> > >> Santhosh > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Olga Natkovich [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 4:40 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Next Pig release proposal > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Here is what I propose we do for the next Pig release: > >> > >> > >> (1) Branch early next week - we have major features and many bug > >>fixes in and will be fixing remaining bugs on the branch > >> > >> (2) Publish the release by 11/15 - that will give us a couple of > >>weeks to stabilize the branch and get last minute bug fixes in > >> > >> (3) Make this release a 1.0 release. Reasons to go for 1.0 and not > >>0.10 > >> > >> a. This release has minimal number of features and was focused on > >>code stabilization and bug fixes. We believe it will be a stable release > >> > >> <email/> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Santhosh > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Thejas Nair [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 10:45 AM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: Next Pig release proposal > >> > >> On 10/20/11 4:58 PM, Santhosh Srinivasan wrote: > >>> Ref: http://tinyurl.com/4ng8upa (last discussion on 1.0) > >>> > >>> How far have we progressed from our last discussion in March. There > >>>was no consensus on the 1.0 release. Opinions ranged from having more > >>>releases to bake in the maturity of the new parser and logical plan > >>>changes to compatibility with Hadoop API (was compared to Social > >>>Security - a very hot topic these days). > >>> > >>> My concerns were around Hadoop API stability. > >> > >> Over the next year or so, there are going to be two API versions of > >>hadoop to be supported - 0.20.x api's and 0.23 apis, as we will have > >>userbase on both. > >> > >> I think it is just a matter of releasing pig 1.0 for 0.20.x api's and > >>1.0 for 0.23.x api's. We will have to come up with a numbering scheme > >>that reflects 'for hadoop version X' in our pig releases, regardless of > >>it being 0.10 or 1.0. > >> > >> As there will be support for different api's of hadoop in pig releases, > >>I don't see a reason why the hadoop api stability should stop pig from > >>going 1.0 . > >> > >> -Thejas > > > > > >
