Hi, I stronly agree with Jonathan here. If there are good reasons why you can't support an older version of Hadoop any more, that's one thing. But having to change 2 lines of code doesn't really qualify as such in my point of view ;)
At least for me, pig support for 0.20.2 is essential - without it, I can't use it. If it doesn't support it, I'll have to branch pig and hack it myself, or stop using it. I guess, there are a lot of people still running 0.20.2 Clusters. If you really have lots of data stored on HDFS and a continuously busy cluster, an upgrade is nothing you do "just because". 2013/2/20 Jonathan Coveney <jcove...@gmail.com>: > I agree that we shouldn't have to support old versions forever. That said, > I also don't think we should be too blase about supporting older versions > where it is not odious to do so. We have a lot of competition in the > language space and the broader the versions we can support, the better > (assuming it isn't too odious to do so). In this case, I don't think it > should be too hard to change ObjectSerializer so that the commons-codec > code used is compatible with both versions...we could just in-line some of > the Base64 code, and comment accordingly. > > That said, we also should be clear about what versions we support, but 6-12 > months seems short. The upgrade cycles on Hadoop are really, really long. > > > 2013/2/20 Prashant Kommireddi <prash1...@gmail.com> > >> Agreed, that makes sense. Probably supporting older hadoop version for a 1 >> or 2 pig releases before moving to a newer/stable version? >> >> Having said that, should we use 0.11 period to communicate the same to the >> community and start moving on 0.12 onwards? I know we are way past 6-12 >> months (1-2 release) time frame with 0.20.2, but we also need to make sure >> users are aware and plan accordingly. >> >> I'd also be interested to hear how other projects (Hive, Oozie) are >> handling this. >> >> -Prashant >> >> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Olga Natkovich <onatkov...@yahoo.com >> >wrote: >> >> > It seems that for each Pig release we need to agree and clearly state >> > which Hadoop versions it will support. I guess the main question is how >> we >> > decide on this. Perhaps we should say that Pig no longer supports older >> > Hadoop versions once the newer one is out for at least 6-12 month to make >> > sure it is stable. I don't think we can support old versions >> indefinitely. >> > It is in everybody's interest to keep moving forward. >> > >> > Olga >> > >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > From: Prashant Kommireddi <prash1...@gmail.com> >> > To: dev@pig.apache.org >> > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:57 AM >> > Subject: Re: pig 0.11 candidate 2 feedback: Several problems >> > >> > What do you guys feel about the JIRA to do with 0.20.2 compatibility >> > (PIG-3194)? I am interested in discussing the strategy around backward >> > compatibility as this is something that would haunt us each time we move >> to >> > the next hadoop version. For eg, we might be in a similar situation while >> > moving to Hadoop 2.0, when some of the stuff might break for 1.0. >> > >> > I feel it would be good to get this JIRA fix in for 0.11, as 0.20.2 users >> > might be caught unaware. Of course, I must admit there is selfish >> interest >> > here and it's probably easier for us to have a workaround on Pig rather >> > than upgrade hadoop in all our production DCs. >> > >> > -Prashant >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Russell Jurney < >> russell.jur...@gmail.com >> > >wrote: >> > >> > > I think someone should step up and fix the easy ones, if possible. >> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Bill Graham <billgra...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Thanks Kai for reporting these. >> > > > >> > > > What do people think about the severity of these issues w.r.t. Pig >> 11? >> > I >> > > > see a few possible options: >> > > > >> > > > 1. We include some or all of these patches in a new Pig 11 rc. We'd >> > want >> > > to >> > > > make sure that they don't destabilize the current branch. This >> approach >> > > > makes sense if we think Pig 11 wouldn't be a good release without one >> > or >> > > > more of these included. >> > > > >> > > > 2. We continue with the Pig 11 release without these, but then >> include >> > > one >> > > > or more in a 0.11.1 release. >> > > > >> > > > 3. We continue with the Pig 11 release without these, but then >> include >> > > them >> > > > in a 0.12 release. >> > > > >> > > > Jon has a patch for the MAP issue >> > > > (PIG-3144<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-3144>) >> > > > ready, which seems like the most pressing of the three to me. >> > > > >> > > > thanks, >> > > > Bill >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Kai Londenberg < >> > > > kai.londenb...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hi, >> > > > > >> > > > > I just subscribed to the dev mailing list in order to give you some >> > > > > feedback on pig 0.11 candidate 2. >> > > > > >> > > > > The following three issues are currently present in 0.11 candidate >> 2: >> > > > > >> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-3144 - 'Erroneous map >> > entry >> > > > > alias resolution leading to "Duplicate schema alias" errors' >> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-3194 - Changes to >> > > > > ObjectSerializer.java break compatibility with Hadoop 0.20.2 >> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-3195 - Race Condition in >> > > > > PhysicalOperator leads to ExecException "Error while trying to get >> > > > > next result in POStream" >> > > > > >> > > > > The last two of these are easily solveable (see the tickets for >> > > > > details on that). The first one is a bit trickier I think, but at >> > > > > least there is a workaround for it (pass Map fields through an UDF) >> > > > > >> > > > > In my personal opinion, each of these problems is pretty severe, >> but >> > > > > opinions about the importance of the MAP Datatype and STREAM >> > Operator, >> > > > > as well as Hadoop 0.20.2 compatibility might differ. >> > > > > >> > > > > so far .. >> > > > > >> > > > > Kai Londenberg >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > *Note that I'm no longer using my Yahoo! email address. Please email >> me >> > > at >> > > > billgra...@gmail.com going forward.* >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Russell Jurney twitter.com/rjurney russell.jur...@gmail.com >> > > datasyndrome.com >> > > >> > >>
