"+1 to dropping Hadoop 0.20.2 support in Hive 0.13, which given that Hive 0.12 has just branched means it isn't likely that Hive 0.13 will come out in the next 6 months."
LOL -1. I was not suggesting we drop 0.20.2 support now, so the next hive version 0.13 won't have it. That would essentially mean we are dropping it now. I was suggesting dropping the 0.20.2 support in 6 months, so whatever version STARTED won't have it. On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Owen O'Malley <omal...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 to dropping Hadoop 0.20.2 support in Hive 0.13, which given that Hive > 0.12 has just branched means it isn't likely that Hive 0.13 will come out > in the next 6 months. > > -- Owen > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Brock Noland <br...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > First off, I have to apologize, I didn't know there would be such > > passions on both sides of the 0.20.2 argument! > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > That rant being done, > > > > No worries man, Hadoop versions are something worth ranting about. > > IMHO Hadoop has a history of changing API's and breaking end users. > > However, I feel this is improving. > > > > > we can not and should not support hadoop 0.20.2 > > > forever. Discontinuing hadoop 0.20.2 in say 6 months might be > reasonable, > > > but I think dropping it on the floor due to a one line change for a > > missing > > > convenience constructor is a bit knee-jerk. > > > > Very sorry if I came across with the opinion that we should "drop > > 0.20.2 now" because of the constructor issue. The issue brought up > > 0.20.2's age in my mind and the logical next step is to ask how long > > we plan on supporting it! :) I like the time bounding idea and I feel > > 6 months is reasonable. FWIW, the 1.X series is stable for my needs. > > > > Brock > > >
