On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Eli Collins <e...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Sorry for rattling you guys, definitely wasn't discussing a veto. I'm > absolutely not opposed, just thought the alternative Todd raised was > worth a couple emails since users have requested both security and > append, and such a branch that includes both of those plus > enhancements and substantial testing exists. > > Arun - I appreciate all the info, looking forward to the release. > > Same here. Back to the patch queue for me! 0.22 here we come. -Todd > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Arun C Murthy <ar...@yahoo-inc.com> > wrote: > > *nod* Ok. > > > > Arun > > > > On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:08 PM, "Nigel Daley" <nda...@mac.com> wrote: > > > >> I say just do it. Eli said it wasn't a blocker. Sure it ain't perfect, > but it's good enough. > >> > >> Let's move on to 0.22 and beyond. > >> > >> Nige > >> > >> On Jan 13, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> On Jan 13, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Eli Collins wrote: > >>> > >>>> The cdh3 patch set Todd is talking about is not vanilla 104.3, it's > >>>> 104.3 re-based onto 20.2 plus patches from branch-20 and trunk (the > >>>> performance and stability fixes I think you're referring to, at least > >>>> the ones that have been posted to Apache jira). > >>>> > >>>> Can you post a pointer to the version you're referring to, eg on > >>>> github? If there isn't a big delta between it and the cdh3 patch set > >>>> (which should have the 20-based patches from jira) perhaps you and > >>>> Todd could easily merge in the delta to create 0.20.x? > >>>> > >>> > >>> I can guarantee it will need work to merge the enhancements since > 20.104.3, it's over 6 months of development. The enhancements includes work > on stability such as iterative ls, limits on JT to prevent single jobs/users > from taking it down etc. and lots of bug-fixes to security. So, > unfortunately the delta is pretty large. > >>> > >>> I'm working on a CHANGES.txt which should reflect all the changes i.e. > bug-fixes and enhancements. > >>> > >>>>> The version I'm offering to push to the community has fixed all of > them, > >>>>> *plus* the added benefit of several stability and performance fixes > we have > >>>>> done since 20.104.3, almost 10 internal releases. This is a battle > tested > >>>>> and hardened version which we have deployed on 40,000+ nodes. It is a > >>>>> significant upgrade on 0.20.104.3 which we never deployed. I'm pretty > sure > >>>>> *some* users will find that valuable. ;) > >>>> > >>>> Definitely, but better to hit two birds with one stone right? Instead > >>>> of a security + enhancements release and an append release we could > >>>> have a single security + append + enhancements release and users don't > >>>> have to choose. > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> We are discussing two options: > >>> 20 + security + enhancements > >>> 20 + security + append > >>> > >>> I think the value we provide via 20+security+enhancements release is > that it's stable, tested and deployed at scale. Doing any more work merging > 6 months of work at Yahoo (again, I guarantee it's a lot of work) will need > a lots of cycles to validate, test and stabilize. > >>> > >>> I feel the alternative is a distraction for me, I'd rather work on > 0.22. > >>> > >>> I can get 20+security+enhancements done very, very, quickly precisely > because I don't have to spend cycles testing it. > >>> > >>> Does that make sense? Thanks for being patient and bearing with me... > >>> > >>> Arun > >>> > >> > > > -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
