Eli, you said: > Putting a build of Hadoop that has 4 security patches applied into the same > category as a product that has entirely re-worked the code and not > gotten it checked into trunk does a major disservice to the people who > contribute to and invest in the project.
How would you phrase the distinction, so that it is clear and reasonably unambiguous for people who are not Hadoop developers? Do the HTTP and Subversion policies draw this distinction, and if so could you please point us at the specific text, or copy that text to this thread? Thanks, --Matt On Jun 15, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Eli Collins wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Owen O'Malley <omal...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Jun 14, 2011, at 5:48 PM, Eli Collins wrote: > >> Wrt derivative works, it's not clear from the document, but I think we >> should explicitly adopt the policy of HTTPD and Subversion that >> backported patches from trunk and security fixes are permitted. > > Actually, the document is extremely clear that only Apache releases may be > called Hadoop. > > There was a very long thread about why the rapidly expanding Hadoop-ecosystem > is leading to at lot of customer confusion about the different "versions" of > Hadoop. We as the Hadoop project don't have the resources or the necessary > compatibility test suite to test compatibility between the different sets of > cherry picked patches. We also don't have time to ensure that all of the > 1,000's of patches applied to 0.20.2 in each of the many (10? 15?) different > versions have been committed to trunk. Futhermore, under the Apache license, > a company Foo could claim that it is a cherry pick version of Hadoop without > releasing their source code that would enable verification. > > In summary, > 1. Hadoop is very successful. > 2. There are many different commercial products that are trying to use the > Hadoop name. > 3. We can't check or enforce that the cherry pick versions are following the > rules. > 4. We don't have a TCK like Java does to validate new versions are > compatible. > 5. By far the most fair way to ensure compatibility and fairness between > companies is that only Apache Hadoop releases may be called Hadoop. > > That said, a package that includes a small number (< 3) of security patches > that haven't been released yet doesn't seem unreasonable. > I've spoken with ops teams at many companies, I am not aware of anyone who runs an official release (with just 2 security patches). By this definition many of the most valuable contributors to Hadoop, including Yahoo!, Cloudera, Facebook, etc are not using Hadoop. Is that really the message we want to send? We expect the PMC to enforce this equally across all parties? It's a fact of life that companies and ops teams that support Hadoop need to patch the software before the PMC has time and/or will to vote on new releases. This is why HTTP and Subversion allow this. Putting a build of Hadoop that has 4 security patches applied into the same category as a product that has entirely re-worked the code and not gotten it checked into trunk does a major disservice to the people who contribute to and invest in the project. Thanks, Eli
