I hope that 22 will be an answer. I think I would be more comfortable with that answer if Hadoop Core were not so obviously internally conflicted and sclerotic. Potential HBase/Hadoop adopters have confidence in 20 seeing the production deployments of it. 21 was to all indications I have seen a dud. There is no reasonable basis as of yet to presume 22 will be "kick ass".
I, at least, was hoping that promoting 0.20-append from its de-facto status to something official could be a fig leaf for HBase while Hadoop Core gets its house in order. Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White) --- On Thu, 12/23/10, Ryan Rawson <ryano...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Ryan Rawson <ryano...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: Cut a hadoop-0.20.0-append release from the tip of > branch-0.20-append branch? > To: general@hadoop.apache.org > Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010, 2:39 PM > How does stack volunteering his time > to release an existing branch > divert resources? > > Without an ASF release of 0.20-append I will keep having to > recommend an external vendor's release of Hadoop. > > > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Konstantin Shvachko > <shv.had...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I also think building 0.20-append will be a major > distraction from moving > > 0.22 forward with all the great new features, > including the new append > > implementation, sitting on the bench because we are > delaying the release. > > It seems to be beneficial for the entire community to > focus on 0.22 rather > > than chasing both birds. > > > > I hear a concern that 0.22 will lack large scale > testing as was the case > > with 0.21. > > I'd like to volunteer to put as many large scale > resources, as I can grasp, > > into stabilizing of 0.22. Under Nigel's management of > course. > > This should get us to production quality in 3-6 months > rather than > > "another 12-15". I also hope it can go even > faster/better if others > > could join the effort. I see > 100 companies > claiming they are powered by > > Apache Hadoop. > > > > I also hope with this effort HBase will be able to > start moving to the new > > append implementation in the next 2-3 months, which in > turn will help 0.22 > > HDFS > > rather than divert resources from it as it would have > be with 0.20-append. > > > > Stack, will this plan will work for HBase survival? > > > > One other thought. Apache Hadoop community is not in > control of external > > releases and distributions, but we should not fork our > own releases by > > introducing > > competing apis. If we can keep the dev line relatively > straight the external > > releases > > will follow. > > > > Thanks, > > --Konstantin > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Ryan Rawson <ryano...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> The append solution in 0.22 that you are referring > to was supposed to > >> be out 13-15 months ago. Pardon if I look for > solutions that deploy 4 > >> months ago (as the 0.20 append branch did). > >> > >> Another 12-15 months of delay is not exactly > helping HDFS either. > >> > >> -ryan > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Jakob Homan > <jgho...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > It's difficult to support this proposal > knowing how much time would be > >> > spent preparing an official release, > continuing to support it and > >> > continuing to two support two separate > implementations of append. I > >> > believe that effort would be better spent > getting out a kick-ass 22 > >> > (or, barring that, a *really* kick-ass 23). > >> > > >> > The Promised Land that we say we're all > trying to get to is regular, > >> > timely, feature-complete, tested, innovative > but stable releases of > >> > new versions of Apache Hadoop. Missing out > any one of those criteria > >> > discovered will continue (and has continued) > the current situation > >> > where quasi-official branches and outside > distributions fill the void > >> > such a release should. The effort to > maintain this offical branch and > >> > fix the bugs that will be discovered could be > better spent moving us > >> > closer to that goal. > >> > > >> > I'm certainly sympathetic to the difficult > position our quagmire has > >> > placed HBase into. However, the current > proposal would hurt HDFS to > >> > help HBase. The best solution for that > project, as well as for HDFS, > >> > is to get HDFS back to a healthy release > cycle; not prolong or codify > >> > the current ad-hoc state of affairs. Let's > stop digging this hole. > >> > -jakob > >> > > >> > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:33 AM, M. C. Srivas > <mcsri...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> [ Sorry if this is be-laboring the > obvious ] > >> >> > >> >> There are two append solutions floating > around, and they are > >> incompatible > >> >> with each other. Thus, the two "branches" > will forever remain > >> incompatible > >> >> with each other, regardless of how they > are numbered (0.22, 0.23, > >> 0.20.3, > >> >> e.t.c.) > >> >> > >> >> Unless both are merged into one branch, > and a switch provided to "use > >> >> HDFS-200 append" or "use 0.22 append", we > have effectively split Hadoop > >> into > >> >> two. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Owen > O'Malley <omal...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Roy > T. Fielding <field...@gbiv.com> > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> > Features are not release version > tags. If there is a security bug > >> >>> > found then we would have to > release a new version of the append > >> >>> > version, and a round of severe > trout slapping would result. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> Yeah, it isn't a perfect solution and > it doesn't scale to a second tag, > >> but > >> >>> the problem is that this is > effectively a release branch between 0.20 > >> and > >> >>> 0.21. Of course I agree that any > critical bugs would need to be fixed > >> in > >> >>> the > >> >>> append branch as well as the 0.20 and > 0.21 branches. > >> >>> > >> >>> If you want to stick to pure numbers > and we want to leave ourselves a > >> way > >> >>> to > >> >>> bugfix the 0.20 branch without > append, we'd could use a version string > >> like > >> >>> 0.20.100, etc. Not pretty, but it > does preserve the numeric ordering > >> and > >> >>> suggest a version jump. > >> >>> > >> >>> If I remember right, there were also > protocol changes in the append > >> branch, > >> >>> which was another reason we didn't > want to put it directly into the > >> 0.20 > >> >>> branch. > >> >>> > >> >>> -- Owen > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >