I think we should not require Job Q compatibility for 1.0 release.
thanks,
dhruba
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Sanjay Radia wrote:
>
> On Sep 28, 2009, at 3:15 AM, Steve Loughran wrote:
>
> Dhruba Borthakur wrote:
>> > It is really nice to have wire-compatibility between clients and serv
On Sep 28, 2009, at 3:15 AM, Steve Loughran wrote:
Dhruba Borthakur wrote:
> It is really nice to have wire-compatibility between clients and
servers
> running different versions of hadoop. The reason we would like
this is
> because we can allow the same client (Hive, etc) submit jobs to t
: Stronger API Compatibility from 0.21 onwards
Dhruba Borthakur wrote:
> It is really nice to have wire-compatibility between clients and servers
> running different versions of hadoop. The reason we would like this is
> because we can allow the same client (Hive, etc) submit jobs to two
&g
Dhruba Borthakur wrote:
It is really nice to have wire-compatibility between clients and servers
running different versions of hadoop. The reason we would like this is
because we can allow the same client (Hive, etc) submit jobs to two
different clusters running different versions of hadoop. But
On 9/25/09 2:40 PM, "Doug Cutting" wrote:
> Would it be materially better for you if we waited longer before calling
> a release 1.0, assuming that the same features are released in the same
> order and on the same schedule regardless of the release name?
Yes.
There is something magic to manager
Allen Wittenauer wrote:
Oh, I completely understand. I'm just throwing in a non-developer's
opinion... because I'm sure I'm not the only one expecting/assuming that 1.0
== completely stable.
If we have to live up to that expectation then we might never release
1.0! Frankly, I fear the long
On 9/25/09 1:18 PM, "Doug Cutting" wrote:
> The question is not whether wire compatibility is a good thing. The
> question is whether API compatibility is useless without wire
> compatibility and, vice versa, whether wire compatibility is useless
> without API compatibility. They're both valu
Allen Wittenauer wrote:
This is just so disappointing and, quite frankly, makes 1.0 less than useful
for Real Work. Great, the APIs don't change but you still have the same
problems of getting data on/off the grid without upgrading your clients
every time.
To me, without wire compatibility,
On 9/25/09 12:44 PM, "Sanjay Radia" wrote:
>
> On Sep 25, 2009, at 12:03 PM, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
>
>> On 9/25/09 10:13 AM, "Dhruba Borthakur" wrote:
>>> It is really nice to have wire-compatibility between clients and
>> servers
>>> running different versions of hadoop. The reason we wo
On Sep 25, 2009, at 12:03 PM, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
On 9/25/09 10:13 AM, "Dhruba Borthakur" wrote:
> It is really nice to have wire-compatibility between clients and
servers
> running different versions of hadoop. The reason we would like
this is
> because we can allow the same client (
On 9/25/09 10:13 AM, "Dhruba Borthakur" wrote:
> It is really nice to have wire-compatibility between clients and servers
> running different versions of hadoop. The reason we would like this is
> because we can allow the same client (Hive, etc) submit jobs to two
> different clusters running diff
It is really nice to have wire-compatibility between clients and servers
running different versions of hadoop. The reason we would like this is
because we can allow the same client (Hive, etc) submit jobs to two
different clusters running different versions of hadoop. But I am not stuck
up on the n
Sanjay Radia wrote:
Both Facebook (Dhruba tells me) and Yahoo are suffering badly from the
lack of wire compatibility - a major motivaiton
for Yahoo to develop Avro.
Indeed. Wire compatibility is a crucial feature that we should release
as soon as possible. Perhaps before 1.0 if 1.0 slips,
On Aug 28, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Sanjay Radia wrote:
> No. The 1.0 proposal was that it included both API and wire
compatibility.
The proposal includes a lot of things, but it's so far just a
proposal.
There's been no vote to formally define what 1.0 will mean. In
eve
Sanjay Radia wrote:
No. The 1.0 proposal was that it included both API and wire compatibility.
The proposal includes a lot of things, but it's so far just a proposal.
There's been no vote to formally define what 1.0 will mean. In every
discussion I've heard, from the very beginning of the p
On Aug 28, 2009, at 10:35 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Sanjay Radia wrote:
> I propose that we honor the compatibility of stable interfaces from
> release 0.21 onwards;
> i.e. apply the same post 1.0 rules to pre-1.0 releases.
I think that makes 0.21 effectively 1.0. The hallmark of 1.0 will be
o
Sanjay Radia wrote:
I propose that we honor the compatibility of stable interfaces from
release 0.21 onwards;
i.e. apply the same post 1.0 rules to pre-1.0 releases.
I think that makes 0.21 effectively 1.0. The hallmark of 1.0 will be
our promise not to change APIs incompatibly until 2.0.
Hadoop 1.0's goal was compatibility on several fronts.
(See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-5071) for details.
Due to the amount of work involved, it has been necessary to split
this work across several releases prior to 1.0.
Turns out that release 0.21 has a number of Jiras ta
18 matches
Mail list logo
