You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@sqoop.apache.org by Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org> on 2012/12/02 02:17:21 UTC
[DISCUSS] Sqoop 2 first cut
Hi Sqoop fellow developers,
it seems that basic import and export functionality in Sqoop 2 will be very soon covered. Having said that I would like to propose doing "first cut" release of Sqoop 2. My motivation to provide early bits is to get feedback from actual users as soon as possible, so that we can incorporate good ideas before it will become too expensive.
As we've discussed in the past [1] - I would like to propose version number 1.99.1. I believe that this version number implies that it's very far from current stable 1.4 version and very very near to 2.0, but it's not 2.0 yet. I would also like to volunteer to be the release manager for this first cut of Sqoop 2 branch.
I'm happy to hear other's thoughts!
Jarcec
Links:
1: http://markmail.org/message/5jygqqy3oryxqdib
Re: [DISCUSS] Sqoop 2 first cut
Posted by Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org>.
Thank you guys for your feedback, I greatly appreciate that. I'll start working on the release then!
Jarcec
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 10:10:24AM -0800, Hari Shreedharan wrote:
> +1 on the release and the RM.
>
> --
> Hari Shreedharan
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 9:28 AM, abhijeet gaikwad wrote:
>
> > +1 for the 'first cut' and Jarcec as Release Manager.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Abhijeet
> > On 5 Dec 2012 15:43, "Alexander Alten-Lorenz" <wget.null@gmail.com (mailto:wget.null@gmail.com)> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Jarcec,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the explanation, make sense. Agree fully and +1 for a release.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > On Dec 2, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <jarcec@apache.org (mailto:jarcec@apache.org)> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > I had several reasons when I've suggested this approach. Firstly, for
> > > >
> > >
> > > versions like 2.0.0-alpha I would expect to get 2.0.0 (without -alpha) soon
> > > and without major changes. This won't be case for Sqoop as we might need to
> > > do major, backward compatibility changes - it's undesirable to introduce
> > > backward incompatible between minor revisions. We also most likely will
> > > release several version before leaving alpha state, which might cause
> > > issues to see what is and what is not considered stable. Also this first
> > > cut is very far from something that might be called Sqoop 2, it contain
> > > just very basic set of functionality without several most important goals
> > > of Sqoop 2. However I'm aware that Hadoop is following this path [1].
> > > >
> > > > Please note that I did not invented this idea. For example KDE project
> > > [2] is using very similar approach for quite some time by now as you can
> > > see on their archive [3]. Versions like 4.8.90 or 4.8.95 are "pre-releases"
> > > for 4.9. Another example would be Ubuntu one client [4]. I would recommend
> > > taking a look on my original proposal as it contains all the information
> > > [5].
> > > >
> > > > Links:
> > > > 1 :http://mirror.nexcess.net/apache/hadoop/common/hadoop-2.0.1-alpha/
> > > > 2: http://kde.org/
> > > > 3: http://download.kde.org/unstable/
> > > > 4: https://launchpad.net/ubuntuone-client/stable-4-0
> > > > 5: http://markmail.org/message/5jygqqy3oryxqdib
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 03:43:38PM +0100, Alexander Alten-Lorenz wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > great.
> > > > > Why not not use a 2.0.0.alpha version or something like that? The could
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > be 2.1.x the first stable release. 1.99 could cause some irritation in
> > > future dialogs (1.xx vs. 2.xx).
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Alex
> > > > >
> > > > > On Dec 2, 2012, at 2:17 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <jarcec@apache.org (mailto:jarcec@apache.org)>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Sqoop fellow developers,
> > > > > > it seems that basic import and export functionality in Sqoop 2 will be
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > very soon covered. Having said that I would like to propose doing "first
> > > cut" release of Sqoop 2. My motivation to provide early bits is to get
> > > feedback from actual users as soon as possible, so that we can incorporate
> > > good ideas before it will become too expensive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As we've discussed in the past [1] - I would like to propose version
> > > number 1.99.1. I believe that this version number implies that it's very
> > > far from current stable 1.4 version and very very near to 2.0, but it's not
> > > 2.0 yet. I would also like to volunteer to be the release manager for this
> > > first cut of Sqoop 2 branch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm happy to hear other's thoughts!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jarcec
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Links:
> > > > > > 1: http://markmail.org/message/5jygqqy3oryxqdib
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Alexander Alten-Lorenz
> > > > > http://mapredit.blogspot.com
> > > > > German Hadoop LinkedIn Group: http://goo.gl/N8pCF
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alexander Alten-Lorenz
> > > http://mapredit.blogspot.com
> > > German Hadoop LinkedIn Group: http://goo.gl/N8pCF
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Sqoop 2 first cut
Posted by Hari Shreedharan <hs...@cloudera.com>.
+1 on the release and the RM.
--
Hari Shreedharan
On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 9:28 AM, abhijeet gaikwad wrote:
> +1 for the 'first cut' and Jarcec as Release Manager.
>
> Thanks,
> Abhijeet
> On 5 Dec 2012 15:43, "Alexander Alten-Lorenz" <wget.null@gmail.com (mailto:wget.null@gmail.com)> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jarcec,
> >
> > Thanks for the explanation, make sense. Agree fully and +1 for a release.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alex
> >
> > On Dec 2, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <jarcec@apache.org (mailto:jarcec@apache.org)> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Alex,
> > > I had several reasons when I've suggested this approach. Firstly, for
> > >
> >
> > versions like 2.0.0-alpha I would expect to get 2.0.0 (without -alpha) soon
> > and without major changes. This won't be case for Sqoop as we might need to
> > do major, backward compatibility changes - it's undesirable to introduce
> > backward incompatible between minor revisions. We also most likely will
> > release several version before leaving alpha state, which might cause
> > issues to see what is and what is not considered stable. Also this first
> > cut is very far from something that might be called Sqoop 2, it contain
> > just very basic set of functionality without several most important goals
> > of Sqoop 2. However I'm aware that Hadoop is following this path [1].
> > >
> > > Please note that I did not invented this idea. For example KDE project
> > [2] is using very similar approach for quite some time by now as you can
> > see on their archive [3]. Versions like 4.8.90 or 4.8.95 are "pre-releases"
> > for 4.9. Another example would be Ubuntu one client [4]. I would recommend
> > taking a look on my original proposal as it contains all the information
> > [5].
> > >
> > > Links:
> > > 1 :http://mirror.nexcess.net/apache/hadoop/common/hadoop-2.0.1-alpha/
> > > 2: http://kde.org/
> > > 3: http://download.kde.org/unstable/
> > > 4: https://launchpad.net/ubuntuone-client/stable-4-0
> > > 5: http://markmail.org/message/5jygqqy3oryxqdib
> > >
> > > On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 03:43:38PM +0100, Alexander Alten-Lorenz wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > great.
> > > > Why not not use a 2.0.0.alpha version or something like that? The could
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > be 2.1.x the first stable release. 1.99 could cause some irritation in
> > future dialogs (1.xx vs. 2.xx).
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 2, 2012, at 2:17 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <jarcec@apache.org (mailto:jarcec@apache.org)>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Sqoop fellow developers,
> > > > > it seems that basic import and export functionality in Sqoop 2 will be
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > very soon covered. Having said that I would like to propose doing "first
> > cut" release of Sqoop 2. My motivation to provide early bits is to get
> > feedback from actual users as soon as possible, so that we can incorporate
> > good ideas before it will become too expensive.
> > > > >
> > > > > As we've discussed in the past [1] - I would like to propose version
> > number 1.99.1. I believe that this version number implies that it's very
> > far from current stable 1.4 version and very very near to 2.0, but it's not
> > 2.0 yet. I would also like to volunteer to be the release manager for this
> > first cut of Sqoop 2 branch.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm happy to hear other's thoughts!
> > > > >
> > > > > Jarcec
> > > > >
> > > > > Links:
> > > > > 1: http://markmail.org/message/5jygqqy3oryxqdib
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Alexander Alten-Lorenz
> > > > http://mapredit.blogspot.com
> > > > German Hadoop LinkedIn Group: http://goo.gl/N8pCF
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alexander Alten-Lorenz
> > http://mapredit.blogspot.com
> > German Hadoop LinkedIn Group: http://goo.gl/N8pCF
> >
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Sqoop 2 first cut
Posted by abhijeet gaikwad <ab...@gmail.com>.
+1 for the 'first cut' and Jarcec as Release Manager.
Thanks,
Abhijeet
On 5 Dec 2012 15:43, "Alexander Alten-Lorenz" <wg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jarcec,
>
> Thanks for the explanation, make sense. Agree fully and +1 for a release.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> On Dec 2, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Alex,
> > I had several reasons when I've suggested this approach. Firstly, for
> versions like 2.0.0-alpha I would expect to get 2.0.0 (without -alpha) soon
> and without major changes. This won't be case for Sqoop as we might need to
> do major, backward compatibility changes - it's undesirable to introduce
> backward incompatible between minor revisions. We also most likely will
> release several version before leaving alpha state, which might cause
> issues to see what is and what is not considered stable. Also this first
> cut is very far from something that might be called Sqoop 2, it contain
> just very basic set of functionality without several most important goals
> of Sqoop 2. However I'm aware that Hadoop is following this path [1].
> >
> > Please note that I did not invented this idea. For example KDE project
> [2] is using very similar approach for quite some time by now as you can
> see on their archive [3]. Versions like 4.8.90 or 4.8.95 are "pre-releases"
> for 4.9. Another example would be Ubuntu one client [4]. I would recommend
> taking a look on my original proposal as it contains all the information
> [5].
> >
> > Links:
> > 1 :http://mirror.nexcess.net/apache/hadoop/common/hadoop-2.0.1-alpha/
> > 2: http://kde.org/
> > 3: http://download.kde.org/unstable/
> > 4: https://launchpad.net/ubuntuone-client/stable-4-0
> > 5: http://markmail.org/message/5jygqqy3oryxqdib
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 03:43:38PM +0100, Alexander Alten-Lorenz wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> great.
> >> Why not not use a 2.0.0.alpha version or something like that? The could
> be 2.1.x the first stable release. 1.99 could cause some irritation in
> future dialogs (1.xx vs. 2.xx).
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Alex
> >>
> >> On Dec 2, 2012, at 2:17 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Sqoop fellow developers,
> >>> it seems that basic import and export functionality in Sqoop 2 will be
> very soon covered. Having said that I would like to propose doing "first
> cut" release of Sqoop 2. My motivation to provide early bits is to get
> feedback from actual users as soon as possible, so that we can incorporate
> good ideas before it will become too expensive.
> >>>
> >>> As we've discussed in the past [1] - I would like to propose version
> number 1.99.1. I believe that this version number implies that it's very
> far from current stable 1.4 version and very very near to 2.0, but it's not
> 2.0 yet. I would also like to volunteer to be the release manager for this
> first cut of Sqoop 2 branch.
> >>>
> >>> I'm happy to hear other's thoughts!
> >>>
> >>> Jarcec
> >>>
> >>> Links:
> >>> 1: http://markmail.org/message/5jygqqy3oryxqdib
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alexander Alten-Lorenz
> >> http://mapredit.blogspot.com
> >> German Hadoop LinkedIn Group: http://goo.gl/N8pCF
> >>
>
> --
> Alexander Alten-Lorenz
> http://mapredit.blogspot.com
> German Hadoop LinkedIn Group: http://goo.gl/N8pCF
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Sqoop 2 first cut
Posted by Alexander Alten-Lorenz <wg...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jarcec,
Thanks for the explanation, make sense. Agree fully and +1 for a release.
Thanks,
Alex
On Dec 2, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> I had several reasons when I've suggested this approach. Firstly, for versions like 2.0.0-alpha I would expect to get 2.0.0 (without -alpha) soon and without major changes. This won't be case for Sqoop as we might need to do major, backward compatibility changes - it's undesirable to introduce backward incompatible between minor revisions. We also most likely will release several version before leaving alpha state, which might cause issues to see what is and what is not considered stable. Also this first cut is very far from something that might be called Sqoop 2, it contain just very basic set of functionality without several most important goals of Sqoop 2. However I'm aware that Hadoop is following this path [1].
>
> Please note that I did not invented this idea. For example KDE project [2] is using very similar approach for quite some time by now as you can see on their archive [3]. Versions like 4.8.90 or 4.8.95 are "pre-releases" for 4.9. Another example would be Ubuntu one client [4]. I would recommend taking a look on my original proposal as it contains all the information [5].
>
> Links:
> 1 :http://mirror.nexcess.net/apache/hadoop/common/hadoop-2.0.1-alpha/
> 2: http://kde.org/
> 3: http://download.kde.org/unstable/
> 4: https://launchpad.net/ubuntuone-client/stable-4-0
> 5: http://markmail.org/message/5jygqqy3oryxqdib
>
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 03:43:38PM +0100, Alexander Alten-Lorenz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> great.
>> Why not not use a 2.0.0.alpha version or something like that? The could be 2.1.x the first stable release. 1.99 could cause some irritation in future dialogs (1.xx vs. 2.xx).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>>
>> On Dec 2, 2012, at 2:17 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Sqoop fellow developers,
>>> it seems that basic import and export functionality in Sqoop 2 will be very soon covered. Having said that I would like to propose doing "first cut" release of Sqoop 2. My motivation to provide early bits is to get feedback from actual users as soon as possible, so that we can incorporate good ideas before it will become too expensive.
>>>
>>> As we've discussed in the past [1] - I would like to propose version number 1.99.1. I believe that this version number implies that it's very far from current stable 1.4 version and very very near to 2.0, but it's not 2.0 yet. I would also like to volunteer to be the release manager for this first cut of Sqoop 2 branch.
>>>
>>> I'm happy to hear other's thoughts!
>>>
>>> Jarcec
>>>
>>> Links:
>>> 1: http://markmail.org/message/5jygqqy3oryxqdib
>>
>> --
>> Alexander Alten-Lorenz
>> http://mapredit.blogspot.com
>> German Hadoop LinkedIn Group: http://goo.gl/N8pCF
>>
--
Alexander Alten-Lorenz
http://mapredit.blogspot.com
German Hadoop LinkedIn Group: http://goo.gl/N8pCF
Re: [DISCUSS] Sqoop 2 first cut
Posted by Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org>.
Hi Alex,
I had several reasons when I've suggested this approach. Firstly, for versions like 2.0.0-alpha I would expect to get 2.0.0 (without -alpha) soon and without major changes. This won't be case for Sqoop as we might need to do major, backward compatibility changes - it's undesirable to introduce backward incompatible between minor revisions. We also most likely will release several version before leaving alpha state, which might cause issues to see what is and what is not considered stable. Also this first cut is very far from something that might be called Sqoop 2, it contain just very basic set of functionality without several most important goals of Sqoop 2. However I'm aware that Hadoop is following this path [1].
Please note that I did not invented this idea. For example KDE project [2] is using very similar approach for quite some time by now as you can see on their archive [3]. Versions like 4.8.90 or 4.8.95 are "pre-releases" for 4.9. Another example would be Ubuntu one client [4]. I would recommend taking a look on my original proposal as it contains all the information [5].
Links:
1 :http://mirror.nexcess.net/apache/hadoop/common/hadoop-2.0.1-alpha/
2: http://kde.org/
3: http://download.kde.org/unstable/
4: https://launchpad.net/ubuntuone-client/stable-4-0
5: http://markmail.org/message/5jygqqy3oryxqdib
On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 03:43:38PM +0100, Alexander Alten-Lorenz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> great.
> Why not not use a 2.0.0.alpha version or something like that? The could be 2.1.x the first stable release. 1.99 could cause some irritation in future dialogs (1.xx vs. 2.xx).
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> On Dec 2, 2012, at 2:17 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Sqoop fellow developers,
> > it seems that basic import and export functionality in Sqoop 2 will be very soon covered. Having said that I would like to propose doing "first cut" release of Sqoop 2. My motivation to provide early bits is to get feedback from actual users as soon as possible, so that we can incorporate good ideas before it will become too expensive.
> >
> > As we've discussed in the past [1] - I would like to propose version number 1.99.1. I believe that this version number implies that it's very far from current stable 1.4 version and very very near to 2.0, but it's not 2.0 yet. I would also like to volunteer to be the release manager for this first cut of Sqoop 2 branch.
> >
> > I'm happy to hear other's thoughts!
> >
> > Jarcec
> >
> > Links:
> > 1: http://markmail.org/message/5jygqqy3oryxqdib
>
> --
> Alexander Alten-Lorenz
> http://mapredit.blogspot.com
> German Hadoop LinkedIn Group: http://goo.gl/N8pCF
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Sqoop 2 first cut
Posted by Alexander Alten-Lorenz <wg...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
great.
Why not not use a 2.0.0.alpha version or something like that? The could be 2.1.x the first stable release. 1.99 could cause some irritation in future dialogs (1.xx vs. 2.xx).
Thanks,
Alex
On Dec 2, 2012, at 2:17 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Sqoop fellow developers,
> it seems that basic import and export functionality in Sqoop 2 will be very soon covered. Having said that I would like to propose doing "first cut" release of Sqoop 2. My motivation to provide early bits is to get feedback from actual users as soon as possible, so that we can incorporate good ideas before it will become too expensive.
>
> As we've discussed in the past [1] - I would like to propose version number 1.99.1. I believe that this version number implies that it's very far from current stable 1.4 version and very very near to 2.0, but it's not 2.0 yet. I would also like to volunteer to be the release manager for this first cut of Sqoop 2 branch.
>
> I'm happy to hear other's thoughts!
>
> Jarcec
>
> Links:
> 1: http://markmail.org/message/5jygqqy3oryxqdib
--
Alexander Alten-Lorenz
http://mapredit.blogspot.com
German Hadoop LinkedIn Group: http://goo.gl/N8pCF
Re: [DISCUSS] Sqoop 2 first cut
Posted by Arvind Prabhakar <ar...@apache.org>.
Hi Jarcec,
A big +1 for getting this going! Having a release out that users can
experiment with will be a great idea to test the waters and see how Sqoop 2
effort needs to evolve to meet the borader requirements.
I also agree with the versioning scheme that you have proposed.
Regards,
Arvind Prabhakar
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org>wrote:
> Hi Sqoop fellow developers,
> it seems that basic import and export functionality in Sqoop 2 will be
> very soon covered. Having said that I would like to propose doing "first
> cut" release of Sqoop 2. My motivation to provide early bits is to get
> feedback from actual users as soon as possible, so that we can incorporate
> good ideas before it will become too expensive.
>
> As we've discussed in the past [1] - I would like to propose version
> number 1.99.1. I believe that this version number implies that it's very
> far from current stable 1.4 version and very very near to 2.0, but it's not
> 2.0 yet. I would also like to volunteer to be the release manager for this
> first cut of Sqoop 2 branch.
>
> I'm happy to hear other's thoughts!
>
> Jarcec
>
> Links:
> 1: http://markmail.org/message/5jygqqy3oryxqdib
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Sqoop 2 first cut
Posted by Will McQueen <wi...@cloudera.com>.
+1
Thanks for volunteering, Jarcec!
Cheers,
Will
On Dec 4, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Seetharam Venkatesh <ve...@innerzeal.com> wrote:
> +1. This is a good thing and glad to see your efforts coming to fruition.
> Kudos!
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Bilung Lee <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for volunteering as the release manager, Jarcec! Definitely +1 to
>> get the first-cut going.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <jarcec@apache.org
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Sqoop fellow developers,
>>> it seems that basic import and export functionality in Sqoop 2 will be
>>> very soon covered. Having said that I would like to propose doing "first
>>> cut" release of Sqoop 2. My motivation to provide early bits is to get
>>> feedback from actual users as soon as possible, so that we can
>> incorporate
>>> good ideas before it will become too expensive.
>>>
>>> As we've discussed in the past [1] - I would like to propose version
>>> number 1.99.1. I believe that this version number implies that it's very
>>> far from current stable 1.4 version and very very near to 2.0, but it's
>> not
>>> 2.0 yet. I would also like to volunteer to be the release manager for
>> this
>>> first cut of Sqoop 2 branch.
>>>
>>> I'm happy to hear other's thoughts!
>>>
>>> Jarcec
>>>
>>> Links:
>>> 1: http://markmail.org/message/5jygqqy3oryxqdib
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Venkatesh
>
> Phone: (408) 658-8368
> EMail: Venkatesh@InnerZeal.com
>
> http://in.linkedin.com/in/seetharamvenkatesh
> http://about.me/SeetharamVenkatesh
>
> “Perfection (in design) is achieved not when there is nothing more to add,
> but rather when there is nothing more to take away.”
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Re: [DISCUSS] Sqoop 2 first cut
Posted by Seetharam Venkatesh <ve...@innerzeal.com>.
+1. This is a good thing and glad to see your efforts coming to fruition.
Kudos!
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Bilung Lee <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks for volunteering as the release manager, Jarcec! Definitely +1 to
> get the first-cut going.
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <jarcec@apache.org
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi Sqoop fellow developers,
> > it seems that basic import and export functionality in Sqoop 2 will be
> > very soon covered. Having said that I would like to propose doing "first
> > cut" release of Sqoop 2. My motivation to provide early bits is to get
> > feedback from actual users as soon as possible, so that we can
> incorporate
> > good ideas before it will become too expensive.
> >
> > As we've discussed in the past [1] - I would like to propose version
> > number 1.99.1. I believe that this version number implies that it's very
> > far from current stable 1.4 version and very very near to 2.0, but it's
> not
> > 2.0 yet. I would also like to volunteer to be the release manager for
> this
> > first cut of Sqoop 2 branch.
> >
> > I'm happy to hear other's thoughts!
> >
> > Jarcec
> >
> > Links:
> > 1: http://markmail.org/message/5jygqqy3oryxqdib
> >
>
--
Regards,
Venkatesh
Phone: (408) 658-8368
EMail: Venkatesh@InnerZeal.com
http://in.linkedin.com/in/seetharamvenkatesh
http://about.me/SeetharamVenkatesh
“Perfection (in design) is achieved not when there is nothing more to add,
but rather when there is nothing more to take away.”
- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Re: [DISCUSS] Sqoop 2 first cut
Posted by Bilung Lee <bl...@apache.org>.
Thanks for volunteering as the release manager, Jarcec! Definitely +1 to
get the first-cut going.
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org>wrote:
> Hi Sqoop fellow developers,
> it seems that basic import and export functionality in Sqoop 2 will be
> very soon covered. Having said that I would like to propose doing "first
> cut" release of Sqoop 2. My motivation to provide early bits is to get
> feedback from actual users as soon as possible, so that we can incorporate
> good ideas before it will become too expensive.
>
> As we've discussed in the past [1] - I would like to propose version
> number 1.99.1. I believe that this version number implies that it's very
> far from current stable 1.4 version and very very near to 2.0, but it's not
> 2.0 yet. I would also like to volunteer to be the release manager for this
> first cut of Sqoop 2 branch.
>
> I'm happy to hear other's thoughts!
>
> Jarcec
>
> Links:
> 1: http://markmail.org/message/5jygqqy3oryxqdib
>
RE: [DISCUSS] Sqoop 2 first cut
Posted by Venkatesan Ranganathan <n....@live.com>.
+1
Thanks for all your contributions (and other contributors') to bring this out
Venkat
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
[DISCUSS] Sqoop 2 first cut
Date:
Sat, 1 Dec 2012 17:17:21 -0800
From:
Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org>
Reply-To:
dev@sqoop.apache.org
To:
dev@sqoop.apache.org
Hi Sqoop fellow developers,
it seems that basic import and export functionality in Sqoop 2 will be very soon covered. Having said that I would like to propose doing "first cut" release of Sqoop 2. My motivation to provide early bits is to get feedback from actual users as soon as possible, so that we can incorporate good ideas before it will become too expensive.
As we've discussed in the past [1] - I would like to propose version number 1.99.1. I believe that this version number implies that it's very far from current stable 1.4 version and very very near to 2.0, but it's not 2.0 yet. I would also like to volunteer to be the release manager for this first cut of Sqoop 2 branch.
I'm happy to hear other's thoughts!
Jarcec
Links:
1: http://markmail.org/message/5jygqqy3oryxqdib