Hi Alejandro,
On Aug 28, 2012, at 8:50 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote:
Chris, thanks for initiating the discussion.
No probs!
IMO a pre-requisite to this is to figure out how we'll handle the following:
To be honest, I don't think any of the below are prereqs. They are technical
issues
I personally am for splitting up the projects. I think there is a lot of
potential that each of the projects could have on their own, and I expect
to see them evolve in new and interesting ways when the projects are not
tied directly together.
But, in order to get there we need to address the
I am +1 for splitting up the projects. This is the step in the right
direction. There will be challenges along the way. I am confident we can
solve them.
Robert and Alejandro have brought up good questions. Here are my thoughts:
- For first one or two releases all the projects can coordinate and
On Aug 29, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
I am +1 for splitting up the projects. This is the step in the right
direction. There will be challenges along the way. I am confident we can
solve them.
Robert and Alejandro have brought up good questions. Here are my thoughts:
- For
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Suresh Srinivas
sur...@hortonworks.com wrote:
- As regards to APIs, currently we have LimitedPrivate APIs for related
projects. This has been used by HBase as well. We need to think about a
timeline by when we can mark these APIs stable. They should remain
Hi Bobby,
On Aug 29, 2012, at 8:17 AM, Robert Evans wrote:
I personally am for splitting up the projects. I think there is a lot of
potential that each of the projects could have on their own, and I expect
to see them evolve in new and interesting ways when the projects are not
tied
- I agree with Arun that the common can move with HDFS.
So, this would mean that a bunch of common functionality needed by
other TPLs (YARN, MR, HBASE) which is not required by HDFS will end up
in HDFS. I'm not necessary against that but it should be well
understood/expected/accepted by
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote:
On Aug 28, 2012, at 8:50 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote:
Chris, thanks for initiating the discussion.
Likewise, thanks Chris!
IMO a pre-requisite to this is to figure out how we'll handle the following:
Good
Hi Tom,
There are also Hadoop tools like distcp, Hadoop archives, Streaming,
etc, which should go with MapReduce.
Good point. I agree.
The alternative would be to have a Common TLP,
which we shouldn't necessarily dismiss, since more important than the
size of the codebase is that there's
On Aug 29, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
On Aug 29, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
Robert and Alejandro have brought up good questions. Here are my thoughts:
- For first one or two releases all the projects can coordinate and do the
releases together. This should help
Hi Chris and all,
Thanks for initiating the discussion. Can I say something in a prospective
of contributor but not a committer or PMC member?
First, I have a feeling that current hadoop project process is good for
contributors to deliver a bug fix but not so easy to deliver a big feature.
Another way around is to produce more than one common's artifacts that
will provide some logic split for the downstream projects like MR, and so on.
Cos
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:26AM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
- I agree with Arun that the common can move with HDFS.
So, this would mean that
Thanks for writing up a proposal Chris.
I think it makes sense to have Common live in HDFS at least for now,
since it's at the bottom of the stack / dependency chain and it's code
is the most intertwined with common, and, per Arun, we tend to work on
common stuff more than MR people. The HDFS
On Aug 28, 2012, at 7:33 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
Process:
0. [DISCUSS] thread for TLP name in which you talk about #1 and #2 below,
potentially draft resolution too.
How about something like this... please provide your feedback.
This is a very early draft, I'll post this
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote:
On Aug 29, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
On Aug 29, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
Robert and Alejandro have brought up good questions. Here are my thoughts:
- For first one or two releases all
I volunteer to help cleanup/normalize Maven stuff.
Thx
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Tom White t...@cloudera.com wrote:
Eric - I agree with Common being included in HDFS. That's what I meant
by Common not having a clear enough mission to be a TLP by itself.
Arun - I'm happy to RM some of
+1
not that anyone knows who I am :)
On Aug 29, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:
Let's just embrace contention as a fact of life on a high-profile
high-stakes project and get back to work.
+1
Hi Eli,
On Aug 29, 2012, at 11:41 AM, Eli Collins wrote:
Thanks for writing up a proposal Chris.
NP.
I think it makes sense to have Common live in HDFS at least for now,
since it's at the bottom of the stack / dependency chain and it's code
is the most intertwined with common, and, per
Arun, great work below. Concrete, and an actual proposal of PMC lists.
What do folks think?
Cheers,
Chris
On Aug 29, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
On Aug 28, 2012, at 7:33 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
Process:
0. [DISCUSS] thread for TLP name in which you talk about
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:19PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
Hi Eli,
On Aug 29, 2012, at 11:41 AM, Eli Collins wrote:
Thanks for writing up a proposal Chris.
NP.
I think it makes sense to have Common live in HDFS at least for now,
since it's at the bottom of the stack /
Hi Todd,
On Aug 29, 2012, at 2:18 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
Have we not learned our lessons from the last attempts to split?
The issues in our community, which I think Chris is referring to, do
not generally revolve around project boundaries. It's not the case
that the HDFS community wants to
Hi Cos,
On Aug 29, 2012, at 4:27 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
Sounds cool to me.
- Hadoop 1.x is is maintenance mode, though it still actively gets
patches so we need to consider it. The surgery necessary to split v1
Hadoop is probably not suitable for a sustaining release and not worth
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Arun, great work below. Concrete, and an actual proposal of PMC lists.
What do folks think?
Already expressed my opinion above on the thread that whole idea of
splitting is crazy. But, I'll comment
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:32PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
Hi Cos,
On Aug 29, 2012, at 4:27 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
Sounds cool to me.
- Hadoop 1.x is is maintenance mode, though it still actively gets
patches so we need to consider it. The surgery necessary to split v1
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
You're right, it's not project boundaries, it's poor community behavior,
and general umbrella-project-ness.
No doubt there's bad behavior. But splitting into smaller projects
won't help anything.
I am curious where the arbitrar numbery 5 is coming from: is it reflected in
the bylaws?
Cos
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 04:35PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Arun, great work below. Concrete, and an actual
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote:
I am curious where the arbitrar numbery 5 is coming from: is it reflected in
the bylaws?
Nope, I picked it based on Arun's earlier picking of the same number
in the YARN thread. We have no bylaws about what would happen
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Todd Lipcon t...@cloudera.com wrote:
But I still think this discussion is silly, and we're not ready to do it.
+1
Despite many allusions to problems that this project split proposal would
purport to solve, I honestly don't see the problems. Yes, Hadoop has had
OK I lied and said I wouldn't reply :)
On Aug 29, 2012, at 4:44 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
You're right, it's not project boundaries, it's poor community behavior,
and general umbrella-project-ness.
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Please provide examples that show umbrella projects work.
Hadoop, in its current form?
The code bases are tightly intertwined. We pulled out Pig/Hive/HBase
because they were substantial codebases
Hey Todd,
On Aug 29, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Please provide examples that show umbrella projects work.
Hadoop, in its current form?
I don't agree that it's working. That's where
On Aug 29, 2012, at 4:32 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
Hi Cos,
On Aug 29, 2012, at 4:27 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
Sounds cool to me.
- Hadoop 1.x is is maintenance mode, though it still actively gets
patches so we need to consider it. The surgery necessary to split v1
On Aug 29, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote:
I am curious where the arbitrar numbery 5 is coming from: is it reflected in
the bylaws?
Nope, I picked it based on Arun's earlier picking of the same number
in the
I have been trying my best to get admin rights for the Hadoop User Grops
page to edit tit.(http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HadoopUserGroups).
If anyone has admin rights to edit this page, can you please help me to
add below URL (in Moin Moin Wiki format) in the North America section?
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 04:44PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
...
I doubt that. Creating TLPs either directly by going to the board, or
via going to the Incubator should involve a set of members of the
Done, thanks for adding this Ravi!
On Aug 29, 2012, at 7:35 PM, Ravishankar Nair wrote:
I have been trying my best to get admin rights for the Hadoop User Grops
page to edit tit.(http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HadoopUserGroups).
If anyone has admin rights to edit this page, can you please
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Hi Eli,
On Aug 29, 2012, at 11:41 AM, Eli Collins wrote:
Thanks for writing up a proposal Chris.
NP.
I think it makes sense to have Common live in HDFS at least for now,
since it's at the
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Arun, great work below. Concrete, and an actual proposal of PMC lists.
What do folks think?
I don't see how it helps. This substantially *increases* the size of
the PMC for HDFS, I don't even
38 matches
Mail list logo
