g 12, 2014 at 4:55 PM, David Robson
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I would like to see an addition to the note that says:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Latest stable release is 1.4.4 (download, documentation). Latest
>>>&g
;> Latest stable release is 1.4.4 (download, documentation). Latest
>> >>>> experimental release is 1.99.3 (download, documentation) - Note that
>> >>>>> 1.99.3 is not compatible with 1.4.4 and not feature complete, it is
>> not
>> >>>&
documentation) - Note that
> >>>>> 1.99.3 is not compatible with 1.4.4 and not feature complete, it is
> not
> >>>> intended for production deployment.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or something along those lines - basically the I would lik
ible with 1.4.4 and not feature complete, it is not
>>>> intended for production deployment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or something along those lines - basically the I would like to see the
>>>> phrase "not for production deployment" in there somew
them off Sqoop for
>>> good). So we should make it as easy as possible to download the correct
>>> version of Sqoop for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe for a new user - codenames cause more confusion. Assuming a
>>> user knew nothing
ee the
>> phrase "not for production deployment" in there somewhere.
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Gwen Shapira [mailto:gshap...@cloudera.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 August 2014 2:20 AM
>> > To: dev@sqoop.apache.org
>> >
way.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think we should add to the confusion by bringing in codenames
> - and instead stick with the industry standard alpha / beta / stable
> terminology as Arvind suggested.
> >>>
> >>> So I would vote on option 2 - and
age-
> From: Gwen Shapira [mailto:gshap...@cloudera.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 August 2014 2:20 AM
> To: dev@sqoop.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Discussing solutions to Sqoop1 and Sqoop2 confusion (was: Code
> name for Sqoop 2)
>
> Thanks to everyone contributing to the discu
Discussing solutions to Sqoop1 and Sqoop2 confusion (was: Code
name for Sqoop 2)
Thanks to everyone contributing to the discussion.
I think it makes sense to mark Sqoop2 as Sqoop-1.99.3-prerelease and make our
site a bit clearer about its lack of backward compatibility.
If this doesn't h
; as Arvind suggested.
>>
>> So I would vote on option 2 - and we should put a warning like "not intended
>> for production deployment" on the link to download Sqoop 1.99.3-alpha.
>>
>> -----Original Message-
>> From: Abraham Elmahrek [mailto:a...@cloudera.com]
> Sent: Saturday, 2 August 2014 6:01 AM
> To: dev@sqoop.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Discussing solutions to Sqoop1 and Sqoop2 confusion (was: Code
> name for Sqoop 2)
>
> +1 for proposal 1 as well.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Venkat Ranganathan <
> vranganat...
urday, 2 August 2014 6:01 AM
To: dev@sqoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: Discussing solutions to Sqoop1 and Sqoop2 confusion (was: Code
name for Sqoop 2)
+1 for proposal 1 as well.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Venkat Ranganathan <
vranganat...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> +1 for propsal 1 al
+1 for proposal 1 as well.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Venkat Ranganathan <
vranganat...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> +1 for propsal 1 also
>
> Thanks
>
> Venkat
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho
> wrote:
> > I don’t have any other suggestion either, so let’s discuss whic
+1 for propsal 1 also
Thanks
Venkat
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote:
> I don’t have any other suggestion either, so let’s discuss which one would
> people prefer?
>
> I’m personally in favor of proposal 1).
>
> Jarcec
>
> On Jul 28, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Gwen Shapira wro
I don’t have any other suggestion either, so let’s discuss which one would
people prefer?
I’m personally in favor of proposal 1).
Jarcec
On Jul 28, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Gwen Shapira wrote:
> Thanks for the great summary. I don't have additional suggestions.
>
> Gwen
>
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 a
Thanks for the great summary. I don't have additional suggestions.
Gwen
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
> Thanks Gwen and Jarcec. It appears that we all agree to the few basic
> points below:
>
> a) Sqoop2 is promising effort although not near completion. We agree that
Thanks Gwen and Jarcec. It appears that we all agree to the few basic
points below:
a) Sqoop2 is promising effort although not near completion. We agree that
there is no need to discuss shutting that down at this time.
b) The naming of Sqoop2 is such that it raises expectations in
users/adopters t
Hi Arvind,
thank you very much for sharing your concerns! You’ve risen a very good points.
I personally see value in Sqoop 2 as the new architecture will allow us to
cover much more use cases, various compliancy regulations and will eventually
simplify user’s life. Based on the recent increase i
Thanks Arvind for your detailed explanation.
I agree that naming releases stable and alpha is a good idea. I don't
agree that it will solve the issue, but we can't know until we try.
Considering that Sqoop2 is intentionally a client-server architecture
with multiple clients and a REST API as an a
19 matches
Mail list logo
