What is wrong with porky the pig as the logo? :)
That's all folks! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 3, 2011, at 1:03 PM, Eric Lubow <eric.lu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Coming from a user's perspective, I would have the following to say: > > Anyone who is using Hadoop has an obvious understanding that 1.0 doesn't > really mean much if it's in use (which Pig obviously is). What 1.0 has the > potential to do for someone like me is that I may be able to go to Amazon > and say, look, Pig is at 1.0 and you are still offering 0.6 on EMR. Having > Pig on something like EMR is what allows wider spread adoption because it > lowers the barrier to entry. > > I am not an expert at any of this stuff (in fact, I don't even know Java), > but I am able to use Hadoop and then train others to write MR jobs with a > fair amount of ease because of a query language like Pig. Tagging it with > 1.0 might make a statement to larger organizations, but most smaller > companies and startups just want to know it's usable. And since there is no > alpha or beta attached anywhere, that's good enough for most. > > The only caveat is that I am working off of Pig 0.6 because all my data is > in S3 and I use Elastic Map Reduce for my jobs. > > The only other thing I would say is that if Pig goes 1.0, can it get a new > logo? I know there are a lot of +1s for this so I figured I would throw my > +1 here too. > > -e > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 13:43, Alan Gates <ga...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > >> I agree that there will probably need to be several 0.9.x releases as the >> new optimization and parser work mature. As a consequence of this it may be >> longer between 0.9 and Pig.next then there has been between the last few >> releases. That only delays the question of what we call Pig.next, it does >> not answer it. >> >> To me, declaring 1.0 would mean the following things: >> >> 1) Pig is ready for production use, at least by the brave. >> 2) It is still rough around the edges, you do not get a smooth product >> until 2.0 or later. >> 3) We will not make non-backward compatible changes to interfaces we have >> declared stable. >> >> Pig is in use in production in multiple places, I do not think anyone will >> argue that it is not rough around the edges, and because we have users who >> run tens of thousands of Pig jobs daily non-backward compatible changes are >> impossible anyway. >> >> As for waiting for Hadoop to go 1.0, that is like waiting for Congress to >> fix social security. I am sure they will get there, but I may be retired >> first. In all seriousness, the Hadoop project has not been moving with >> speed or agility over the last few years, and I do not think waiting for >> them to do something is a good idea. Nor do I see it as necessary. Before >> we could go 1.0 would we insist that every jar we import is >= 1.0? Yes we >> are bound more tightly to Hadoop then we are to log4j. But we are still our >> own project. 1.0 is a claim we are making about ourselves, not about the >> platform we run on. We should choose our release numbering in a way that >> sends a clear message to our users, and let those same users evaluate Hadoop >> separately. >> >> Also the argument that we should not go 1.0 because we are changing a lot >> of things is bogus. We are always changing a lot of things. If 1.0 means >> we will not make any major changes, then we will not get there until we go >> into some kinds of maintenance mode where we deem the majority of the work >> to have been done. I hope I have retired before we reach that state. >> >> My perspective on what 1.0 means obviously comes from a developer inside >> the project. I would be interested in hearing from users and anyone with a >> more marketing oriented perspective on what message 1.0 would send to >> (potential) pig users. >> >> Alan. >> >> On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:31 PM, Dmitriy Ryaboy wrote: >> >> I am worried that the new optimization plan work has not had a chance to >>> settle in, and we are releasing a brand new parser for the language in >>> 0.9. >>> Those are pretty significant changes, if the idea behind calling something >>> a >>> "1.0" is stability, we may want to give them a release to mature a bit. Of >>> course we can just release 0.9x for a while until we feel this stuff has >>> been tested in a wide enough variety of installations / hadoop >>> configurations / use cases. >>> >>> D >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Olga Natkovich <ol...@yahoo-inc.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Pig Users and Developers, >>>> >>>> We are starting to plan the work after Pig 0.9. One thing we need to >>>> decide >>>> is what name/number to give to the next release: Pig 0.10 or Pig 1.0. >>>> >>>> I believe that we are ready to declare 1.0. Here are my reasons: >>>> >>>> (1) We are mature enough and produce good quality releases >>>> (2) Our interface no longer change in major ways >>>> (3) We have a growing user community and we want the newcomers to >>>> know >>>> that our releases are stable >>>> (4) If the next release is 0.10 and we decide that we should switch >>>> on >>>> the following release going from 0.10 to 1.0 will generate a lot of >>>> confusion. >>>> >>>> I wanted to start this conversation and see what others think before >>>> deciding if it is worth while to call a vote. >>>> >>>> Olga >>>> >>>> >> > Eric Lubow e: eric.lu...@gmail.com w: eric.lubow.org
