On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Steve Loughran <ste...@hortonworks.com>wrote:
> On 18 September 2013 12:53, Alejandro Abdelnur <t...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Steve Loughran <ste...@hortonworks.com > > >wrote: > > > > > I'm reluctant for this as while delaying the release, because we are > > going > > > to find problems all the way up the stack -which will require a > > > choreographed set of changes. Given the grief of the protbuf update, I > > > don't want to go near that just before the final release. > > > > > > > Well, I would use the exact same argument used for protobuf (which only > > complication was getting protoc 2.5.0 in the jenkins boxes and > communicate > > developers to do the same, other than that we didn't hit any other issue > > AFAIK) ... > > > > protobuf was traumatic at build time, as I recall because it was neither > forwards or backwards compatible. Those of us trying to build different > branches had to choose which version to have on the path, or set up scripts > to do the switching. HBase needed rebuilding, so did other things. And I > still have the pain of downloading and installing protoc on all Linux VMs I > build up going forward, until apt-get and yum have protoc 2.5 artifacts. > > This means it was very painful for developer, added a lot of late breaking > pain to the developers, but it had one key feature that gave it an edge: it > was immediately obvious where you had a problem as things didn't compile or > classload without linkage problems. No latent bugs, unless protobuf 2.5 has > them internally -for which we have to rely on google's release testing to > have found. > > That is a lot simpler to regression test than adding any new feature to > HDFS and seeing what breaks -as that is something that only surfaces out in > the field. Which is why I think it's too late in the 2.1 release timetable > to add symlinks. We've had a 2.1-beta out there, we've got feedback. Fix > those problems that are show stoppers, but don't add more stuff. Which is > precisely why I have not been pushing in any of my recent changes. I may > seem ruthless arguing against symlinks -but I'm not being inconsistent with > my own commit history. The only two things I've put in branch-2.1 since > beta-1 were a separate log for the Configuration deprecation warnings and a > patch to the POM for a java7 build on OSX: and they weren't even my > patches. > > > -Steve > > (One of these days I should volunteer to be the release manager and it'll > be obvious that Arun is being quite amenable to all the other developers) > > > > > > > IMO, it makes more sense to do this change during the beta rather than > when > > GA. That gives us more flexibility to iron out things if necessary. > > > > > I'm arguing this change can go into the beta of the successor to 2.1 -not > GA. > > What does "this change" refer to? Symlinks are already in 2.1, and the existing semantics create problems for programs (eg see the pig example in HADOOP-9912) that we need to resolve. I don't think do nothing is an option for 2.2. GA. Thanks, Eli > -- > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately > and delete it from your system. Thank You. >
