om: Thejas Nair [mailto:the...@hortonworks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:01 AM
To: dev@pig.apache.org
Subject: Re: Next Pig release proposal
Dmitriy,
I haven't understood how you propose the code in future trunk would get
into 1.x releases, once the 1.0 is out. Will it be possible t
ue with 0.10.1, 0.10.2, etc.
3. All subsequent releases based off of trunk and the 1.0 branch will bear the
1.X.Y signature till we hit the next major release
Santhosh
-Original Message-
From: Dmitriy Ryaboy [mailto:dvrya...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 6:46 PM
To: dev@pig.
I can find two issues reported by Jonathan, both related to the parser.
One having to do with nested statement syntax, and other to do with
speed of parsing. Both of these should get looked into before next release.
But I don't see a whole lot issues with the parser changes or 0.9 in
general,
ibility*
> (3) Patch version changes: P1 bug fixes; no new features, no compatibility
> breakage.
>
> Olga
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Dai [mailto:da...@hortonworks.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 12:00 PM
> To: dev@pig.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Next
, October 25, 2011 12:31 AM
To: dev@pig.apache.org
Subject: Re: Next Pig release proposal
Thanks Santhosh, you understood my meaning precisely.
I believe that unlike other releases, 1.0 is "special" in people's
minds, it's a "we are ready" label. I don't thi
inue with 0.10.1, 0.10.2, etc.
> 3. All subsequent releases based off of trunk and the 1.0 branch will bear
> the 1.X.Y signature till we hit the next major release
>
> Santhosh
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dmitriy Ryaboy [mailto:dvrya...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday,
ll we hit the next major release
Santhosh
-Original Message-
From: Dmitriy Ryaboy [mailto:dvrya...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 6:46 PM
To: dev@pig.apache.org
Subject: Re: Next Pig release proposal
I am just saying based on what's in trunk, 10.0 should not be 1.0. I am
t; When we had PigInputFormat and PigOutputFormat, your reasoning would
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> be
>>>>
>>>>> spot on. I am concerned about the following. Our tight integration
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> with
>>
anthosh
-Original Message-
From: Thejas Nair [mailto:the...@hortonworks.com]
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 11:22 AM
To: dev@pig.apache.org
Subject: Re: Next Pig release proposal
Santosh,
I thought you meant API stability for hadoop across major versions,
but
I
guess you are referring
influence this decision.
>> From
>> > > >the few emails that have been exchanged since yesterday, we have the
>> > > >following factors:
>> > > >
>> > > >1. Hadoop 0.20.205 (support for Append)
>> > > >2. Hadoop 0.22
&g
Based on the discussion - there does not seem to be a disagreement on the first
2 points but we still don't have a consensus on the version number. The problem
is that we can't branch till we do.
I am going to send a separate email on the vote for the version number.
According to our bylaws, we
st discussion in March. There
>> > was
>> > > >>no consensus on the 1.0 release. Opinions ranged from having more
>> > > >>releases to bake in the maturity of the new parser and logical plan
>> > > >>changes to compatibility with Hadoop API (was compared to Social
>&
s in the 'bug fix'
or 'feature' category.
-Scott
>
>Olga
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Daniel Dai [mailto:da...@hortonworks.com]
>Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 12:00 PM
>To: dev@pig.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Next Pig release proposal
>
&g
search for emails from Jonathan Coveney to pig-user that are not about jruby
:)
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Thejas Nair wrote:
> On 10/24/11 12:43 PM, Dmitriy Ryaboy wrote:
>
>> We are finding a fair number of issues trying to move from Pig 0.8.1 to
>> 0.9,
>> and I don't think those issue
s, no compatibility
breakage.
Olga
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Dai [mailto:da...@hortonworks.com]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 12:00 PM
To: dev@pig.apache.org
Subject: Re: Next Pig release proposal
Yes, we need a versioning scheme. There are two versioning scheme I can
think of:
S
On 10/24/11 12:43 PM, Dmitriy Ryaboy wrote:
We are finding a fair number of issues trying to move from Pig 0.8.1 to 0.9,
and I don't think those issues are fixed in 10, either.. not sure that this
"stabilization" process has happened yet.
D
What kind of issues are these ? Are they related to
gt;1. Hadoop 0.20.205 (support for Append)
> > > >2. Hadoop 0.22
> > > >3. Hadoop 0.23
> > > >4. Maturity of the new parser
> > > >5. Stability of the new logical plan
> > > >6. Other components in the eco system.
> > > > - Avr
ability of the new logical plan
> > >6. Other components in the eco system.
> > > - Avro (1.5.4, 1.4.1, ...)
> > > - Cassandra (1.0.0, 0.8.7, ...)
> > > - Chukwa (0.4.0, 0.3.0, ...)
> > > - Hama (0.3.0, 0.2.0, ...)
> > >
- Cassandra (1.0.0, 0.8.7, ...)
> > - Chukwa (0.4.0, 0.3.0, ...)
> > - Hama (0.3.0, 0.2.0, ...)
> > - Hbase (0.90.4, 0.90.3, 0.90.2, 0.90.1, ...)
> > - Hive (Releases - 0.7.1, 0.7.0, 0.6.0, ...)
> > - Zookeeper (3.3.3, 3.3.2, 3.2.2, 3.1.2, ...)
&
...)
> - Hbase (0.90.4, 0.90.3, 0.90.2, 0.90.1, ...)
> - Hive (Releases - 0.7.1, 0.7.0, 0.6.0, ...)
> - Zookeeper (3.3.3, 3.3.2, 3.2.2, 3.1.2, ...)
>
>Santhosh
>
>
>-Original Message-----
>From: Thejas Nair [mailto:the...@hortonworks.com]
>Sent: Friday, Octobe
1:22 AM
To: dev@pig.apache.org
Subject: Re: Next Pig release proposal
Santosh,
I thought you meant API stability for hadoop across major versions, but I guess
you are referring to stability within 0.23 versions. But argument applies to
that as well, if 0.23.1 is not compatible with 0.23.0, we need to ca
21 matches
Mail list logo
