FYI that it's pretty close in terms of functionality. Dong and Ferdinand have done a ton of work here.
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Thejas Nair <the...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > I don't know for sure if beeline has finally reached feature parity > with hive cli. I haven't looked at that very closely. I think we > should start a separate thread on it and discuss with the community. > > > On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Carl Steinbach <cwsteinb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Thejas, > > > > I agree that it's important to give users adequate time to migrate off of > > HiveCLI. In order to avoid wasting time what do you think about including > > this deprecation notice in the 1.0 release? > > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Thejas Nair <the...@hortonworks.com> > wrote: > > > >> HiveServer, and the original JDBC driver have already been purged in > >> trunk. The HiveServer1 docs have been asking users to use HiveServer2 > >> for a long time. > >> > >> The case with Hive CLI is different. We never marked that as > >> deprecated or asked users to use beeline instead. Beeline had been > >> lacking in some features until recently. We just added some > >> capabilities to beeline such has progress/log information support. We > >> need to discuss deprecating that, deprecate it and wait for some time > >> (at least a year or so considering how widely it is used), before we > >> can remove it. I think that is more like a candidate for a 2.0 . > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Thejas > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Carl Steinbach <cwsteinb...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > I'd like to see HiveCLI, HiveServer, and the original JDBC driver > >> > deprecated and purged from the codebase before the 1.0 release. This > >> topic > >> > probably needs its own thread, but I thought I should mention it here. > >> > > >> > Thanks. > >> > > >> > - Carl > >> > > >> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Enis Söztutar <e...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi, > >> >> > >> >> I am the RM for HBase-1.0 coming in a a couple of weeks (hopefully). > I > >> >> think both HBase and Hive are past due for doing 1.0 releases. So I > am a > >> >> major +1 for Hive-1.0 (non-binding of course). > >> >> > >> >> The important thing for calling something 1.0 I think is the focus on > >> user > >> >> level API and compatibility issues. But still, you should think about > >> >> future releases and for example when you can do a 1.x release versus > 2.x > >> >> release. We have started thinking about that some time ago, and we > are > >> >> adopting a semantic versioning proposal ( > >> >> > >> >> > >> > https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hbase-dev/201411.mbox/%3c53115341.900549.1416100552603.javamail.ya...@jws106116.mail.bf1.yahoo.com%3E > >> >> ) > >> >> for this exact same reason. In Hive, things may be a bit different > than > >> >> HBase or Hadoop (since the major interface is SQL) but still I think > you > >> >> should consider the implications for all the APIs that Hive surfaces > and > >> >> for deployment, etc for a 1.0 discussion. > >> >> > >> >> For HBase, the official "theme" of the 1.0 release is (from my RC > mail): > >> >> > The theme of (eventual) 1.0 release is to > >> >> > become a stable base for future 1.x series of releases. 1.0 release > >> will > >> >> > aim to achieve at least the same level of stability of 0.98 > releases > >> >> > without introducing too many new features. > >> >> > >> >> What I am getting at is that, in HBase, we opted for not introducing > a > >> lot > >> >> of major features and branched relatively early to give more time to > >> >> stabilize the branch. In the end what you want to deliver and market > as > >> 1.0 > >> >> should be relatively stable in my opinion. Just my 2 cents from an > >> outsider > >> >> perspective. > >> >> > >> >> Enis > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Lefty Leverenz < > >> leftylever...@gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Would everyone just laugh if I suggested that a 1.0 release ought > to > >> >> > include complete documentation? > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- Lefty > >> >> > > >> >> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Thejas Nair < > the...@hortonworks.com> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > The reasons for confusion in the Hadoop case were different. > There > >> >> > > were many branches, and new features were added in minor version > >> >> > > releases, eg kerberos security was not there in "0.20.2", but it > was > >> >> > > added in "0.20.20x". Then you had other versions like "0.21", > but > >> the > >> >> > > older "0.20.20x" version was the one that was converted as 1.x. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > This confusion isn't there in hive. In case of hive, every "0.x" > >> >> > > release has been adding new features, and releases have been > >> >> > > sequential. "0.x.y" releases have been maintenance releases. 1.0 > is > >> a > >> >> > > sequential release after 0.14, and it is a newer release than > 0.14. > >> I > >> >> > > agree that the version in Hadoop created lot of confusion, but I > >> don't > >> >> > > see this as being the same. We could check in the user mailing > list > >> to > >> >> > > see if they are going to be HUGELY confused by this. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > If it makes things better, we can also include the change to > delete > >> >> > > HiveServer1 in the new release. That is a safer change, which was > >> >> > > mainly just deleting that old code. That would be a major > difference > >> >> > > from 0.14. (The docs have already been updated to say that 0.14 > does > >> >> > > not support 0.20, so I don't think we need that in 1.0). > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Looks like we have agreement that 1.0 versioning scheme is a > great > >> >> > > thing for hive. I don't think there is a strong reason to delay a > >> 1.0 > >> >> > > release by several months to the detriment of hive. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Xuefu Zhang <xzh...@cloudera.com > > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > > Major release means more functionality, while minor releases > >> provides > >> >> > > > stability. Therefore, I'd think, 1.0, as a major release, > should > >> >> bring > >> >> > in > >> >> > > > something new to the user. If it's desirable to provide more > >> stable > >> >> > > > release, then 0.14.1, 0.14.2, and so on are the right ones. In > my > >> >> > > opinion, > >> >> > > > we should avoid doing anti-pattern by introducing major release > >> like > >> >> a > >> >> > > > maintenance release and creating confusions among users. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > In one word, major release is NOT equal to major confusion. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > --Xuefu > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Sergey Shelukhin < > >> >> > ser...@hortonworks.com > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > >> I think it's better to do 1.0 release off a maintenance > release, > >> >> since > >> >> > > that > >> >> > > >> is more stable. Trunk is moving fast. > >> >> > > >> HBase uses odd release numbers for this purpose, where 0.95, > 97, > >> 99 > >> >> > etc. > >> >> > > >> are dev releases and 0.96, 0.98, 1.0 etc. are public; that > works > >> >> well > >> >> > > for > >> >> > > >> baking, but since we don't have that seems like 14.0 would be > a > >> good > >> >> > > place > >> >> > > >> to bake. 15.0 with bunch of new bugs that we are busy > introducing > >> >> may > >> >> > > not > >> >> > > >> be as good for 1.0 IMHO... > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Brock Noland < > br...@cloudera.com > >> > > >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > Hi Thejas, > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > Thank you very much for your proposal! > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > Hadoop did something similar renaming branches to branch-1 > and > >> >> > > >> > branch-2. At the time, although I was very much in favor of > the > >> >> new > >> >> > > >> > release numbers, I thought it could have been handled > better. > >> >> > Renaming > >> >> > > >> > release branches ended up being very confusing for users > and I > >> >> had a > >> >> > > >> > ton of conversations with users about how releases were > >> related. > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > In this situation, I feel the situation is similar, we'll > >> release > >> >> > 1.0 > >> >> > > >> > which is really just the second maintainence release of the > >> 0.14 > >> >> > > >> > branch. Thus it's 1.0 but really it's just 0.14 + some > fixes. I > >> >> feel > >> >> > > >> > this will again be confusing for users. For this important > >> >> change, I > >> >> > > >> > think we should use a new release vehicle. > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > Thus, I'd suggest we do the rename in trunk, soon, and then > the > >> >> next > >> >> > > >> > release of Hive will be 1.0. > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> >> > > >> > Brock > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Thejas Nair < > >> >> > the...@hortonworks.com> > >> >> > > >> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> > > Apache Hive is the de facto SQL query engine in the hadoop > >> >> > > ecosystem. > >> >> > > >> > > I believe it is also the most widely used one as well. > Hive > >> is > >> >> > used > >> >> > > in > >> >> > > >> > > production in large number of enterprises. > >> >> > > >> > > However, this 0.x.y versioning that we have been using for > >> Hive > >> >> > > >> > > obscures this status of Hive. > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > I propose creating a 1.0 release out of the 0.14 branch of > >> Hive. > >> >> > We > >> >> > > >> > > already have some bug fixes for 0.14 release that have > been > >> >> added > >> >> > to > >> >> > > >> > > the branch and a maintenance release is due. Having it > out of > >> >> this > >> >> > > >> > > maintenance branch would create a better first 1.0 > version, > >> and > >> >> we > >> >> > > >> > > would be able to do it soon. What would have been 0.15 > >> version > >> >> > would > >> >> > > >> > > then become 1.1 version . > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > Thoughts ? > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > Thanks, > >> >> > > >> > > Thejas > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > -- > >> >> > > >> > > 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. > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> -- > >> >> > > >> 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. > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > > >> >> > > -- > >> >> > > 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. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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. > >> > > -- > 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. >
