How hard would it be to upgrade the default protobuf version that Mesos depends on?

[Matei Zaharia <ma...@eecs.berkeley.edu>]

Just wondering, because 2.4.1 has been out for a while. I'm starting to see other libraries depend on 2.4.1, which makes it tricky to link Mesos into the same project.

Matei

Re: How hard would it be to upgrade the default protobuf version that Mesos depends on?

[Matei Zaharia <ma...@eecs.berkeley.edu>]

Alright, just posted it. Thanks for taking a look at this.

Matei

On Mar 29, 2012, at 10:53 PM, Benjamin Hindman wrote:

> Yes please.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Matei Zaharia <ma...@eecs.berkeley.edu>wrote:
> 
>> By the way, I just tried Ben's suggestions to use Protobuf 2.4.1 and it
>> did mostly works (a few other things I had to change were references to
>> protobuf 2.3.0 in src/python/setup.py.in, Hadoop, and the test framework
>> launch scripts). Want me to post a patch for this?
>> 
>> Matei
>> 
>> On Mar 29, 2012, at 10:16 PM, Matei Zaharia wrote:
>> 
>>> Smaller releases are definitely a good thing, but I brought this up
>> because it's slightly tough to put in a minor release, since you'll change
>> the version of a library that other people depend on. If there's no need to
>> stick with protobuf 2.3 for some existing use, then maybe we should just go
>> to 2.4.
>>> 
>>> Matei
>>> 
>>> On Mar 29, 2012, at 10:03 PM, Andy Konwinski wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I would prefer to hold off and try to get a *much* smaller 2nd release
>> out
>>>> the door within a month or two after this one.
>>>> 
>>>> Having a list of features to go into that one (including this feature)
>> is a
>>>> good thing. I'd go so far as to suggest we start the JIRA for the second
>>>> release now, and even pick a target release date for it (end of May?)
>>>> 
>>>> Andy
>>>> On Mar 29, 2012 6:41 PM, "Matei Zaharia" <ma...@eecs.berkeley.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Okay, in that case, do you think it's worth doing it for the first
>>>>> release, or should we leave it till later? I'm okay either way, but
>> later
>>>>> versions of Spark will need 2.4.1 because stuff like Akka is using it.
>> I
>>>>> agree we shouldn't delay the release for minor things though.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Matei
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 29, 2012, at 9:37 PM, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Most likely this is very straightforward. Possibly as easy as
>> replacing
>>>>> the
>>>>>> tar.gz in third_party and changing the third_party/versions.am to use
>>>>>> "2.4.1" instead of "2.3.0".
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Matei Zaharia <
>> matei@eecs.berkeley.edu
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Just wondering, because 2.4.1 has been out for a while. I'm starting
>> to
>>>>>>> see other libraries depend on 2.4.1, which makes it tricky to link
>> Mesos
>>>>>>> into the same project.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Matei
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: How hard would it be to upgrade the default protobuf version that Mesos depends on?

[Benjamin Hindman <be...@eecs.berkeley.edu>]

Yes please.


On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Matei Zaharia <ma...@eecs.berkeley.edu>wrote:

> By the way, I just tried Ben's suggestions to use Protobuf 2.4.1 and it
> did mostly works (a few other things I had to change were references to
> protobuf 2.3.0 in src/python/setup.py.in, Hadoop, and the test framework
> launch scripts). Want me to post a patch for this?
>
> Matei
>
> On Mar 29, 2012, at 10:16 PM, Matei Zaharia wrote:
>
> > Smaller releases are definitely a good thing, but I brought this up
> because it's slightly tough to put in a minor release, since you'll change
> the version of a library that other people depend on. If there's no need to
> stick with protobuf 2.3 for some existing use, then maybe we should just go
> to 2.4.
> >
> > Matei
> >
> > On Mar 29, 2012, at 10:03 PM, Andy Konwinski wrote:
> >
> >> I would prefer to hold off and try to get a *much* smaller 2nd release
> out
> >> the door within a month or two after this one.
> >>
> >> Having a list of features to go into that one (including this feature)
> is a
> >> good thing. I'd go so far as to suggest we start the JIRA for the second
> >> release now, and even pick a target release date for it (end of May?)
> >>
> >> Andy
> >> On Mar 29, 2012 6:41 PM, "Matei Zaharia" <ma...@eecs.berkeley.edu>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Okay, in that case, do you think it's worth doing it for the first
> >>> release, or should we leave it till later? I'm okay either way, but
> later
> >>> versions of Spark will need 2.4.1 because stuff like Akka is using it.
> I
> >>> agree we shouldn't delay the release for minor things though.
> >>>
> >>> Matei
> >>>
> >>> On Mar 29, 2012, at 9:37 PM, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Most likely this is very straightforward. Possibly as easy as
> replacing
> >>> the
> >>>> tar.gz in third_party and changing the third_party/versions.am to use
> >>>> "2.4.1" instead of "2.3.0".
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Matei Zaharia <
> matei@eecs.berkeley.edu
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Just wondering, because 2.4.1 has been out for a while. I'm starting
> to
> >>>>> see other libraries depend on 2.4.1, which makes it tricky to link
> Mesos
> >>>>> into the same project.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Matei
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>

Re: How hard would it be to upgrade the default protobuf version that Mesos depends on?

[Matei Zaharia <ma...@eecs.berkeley.edu>]

By the way, I just tried Ben's suggestions to use Protobuf 2.4.1 and it did mostly works (a few other things I had to change were references to protobuf 2.3.0 in src/python/setup.py.in, Hadoop, and the test framework launch scripts). Want me to post a patch for this?

Matei

On Mar 29, 2012, at 10:16 PM, Matei Zaharia wrote:

> Smaller releases are definitely a good thing, but I brought this up because it's slightly tough to put in a minor release, since you'll change the version of a library that other people depend on. If there's no need to stick with protobuf 2.3 for some existing use, then maybe we should just go to 2.4.
> 
> Matei
> 
> On Mar 29, 2012, at 10:03 PM, Andy Konwinski wrote:
> 
>> I would prefer to hold off and try to get a *much* smaller 2nd release out
>> the door within a month or two after this one.
>> 
>> Having a list of features to go into that one (including this feature) is a
>> good thing. I'd go so far as to suggest we start the JIRA for the second
>> release now, and even pick a target release date for it (end of May?)
>> 
>> Andy
>> On Mar 29, 2012 6:41 PM, "Matei Zaharia" <ma...@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> Okay, in that case, do you think it's worth doing it for the first
>>> release, or should we leave it till later? I'm okay either way, but later
>>> versions of Spark will need 2.4.1 because stuff like Akka is using it. I
>>> agree we shouldn't delay the release for minor things though.
>>> 
>>> Matei
>>> 
>>> On Mar 29, 2012, at 9:37 PM, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Most likely this is very straightforward. Possibly as easy as replacing
>>> the
>>>> tar.gz in third_party and changing the third_party/versions.am to use
>>>> "2.4.1" instead of "2.3.0".
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Matei Zaharia <matei@eecs.berkeley.edu
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Just wondering, because 2.4.1 has been out for a while. I'm starting to
>>>>> see other libraries depend on 2.4.1, which makes it tricky to link Mesos
>>>>> into the same project.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Matei
>>> 
>>> 
> 

Re: How hard would it be to upgrade the default protobuf version that Mesos depends on?

[Matei Zaharia <ma...@eecs.berkeley.edu>]

Smaller releases are definitely a good thing, but I brought this up because it's slightly tough to put in a minor release, since you'll change the version of a library that other people depend on. If there's no need to stick with protobuf 2.3 for some existing use, then maybe we should just go to 2.4.

Matei

On Mar 29, 2012, at 10:03 PM, Andy Konwinski wrote:

> I would prefer to hold off and try to get a *much* smaller 2nd release out
> the door within a month or two after this one.
> 
> Having a list of features to go into that one (including this feature) is a
> good thing. I'd go so far as to suggest we start the JIRA for the second
> release now, and even pick a target release date for it (end of May?)
> 
> Andy
> On Mar 29, 2012 6:41 PM, "Matei Zaharia" <ma...@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Okay, in that case, do you think it's worth doing it for the first
>> release, or should we leave it till later? I'm okay either way, but later
>> versions of Spark will need 2.4.1 because stuff like Akka is using it. I
>> agree we shouldn't delay the release for minor things though.
>> 
>> Matei
>> 
>> On Mar 29, 2012, at 9:37 PM, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
>> 
>>> Most likely this is very straightforward. Possibly as easy as replacing
>> the
>>> tar.gz in third_party and changing the third_party/versions.am to use
>>> "2.4.1" instead of "2.3.0".
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Matei Zaharia <matei@eecs.berkeley.edu
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Just wondering, because 2.4.1 has been out for a while. I'm starting to
>>>> see other libraries depend on 2.4.1, which makes it tricky to link Mesos
>>>> into the same project.
>>>> 
>>>> Matei
>> 
>> 

Re: How hard would it be to upgrade the default protobuf version that Mesos depends on?

[Andy Konwinski <an...@berkeley.edu>]

I would prefer to hold off and try to get a *much* smaller 2nd release out
the door within a month or two after this one.

Having a list of features to go into that one (including this feature) is a
good thing. I'd go so far as to suggest we start the JIRA for the second
release now, and even pick a target release date for it (end of May?)

Andy
On Mar 29, 2012 6:41 PM, "Matei Zaharia" <ma...@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> Okay, in that case, do you think it's worth doing it for the first
> release, or should we leave it till later? I'm okay either way, but later
> versions of Spark will need 2.4.1 because stuff like Akka is using it. I
> agree we shouldn't delay the release for minor things though.
>
> Matei
>
> On Mar 29, 2012, at 9:37 PM, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
>
> > Most likely this is very straightforward. Possibly as easy as replacing
> the
> > tar.gz in third_party and changing the third_party/versions.am to use
> > "2.4.1" instead of "2.3.0".
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Matei Zaharia <matei@eecs.berkeley.edu
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Just wondering, because 2.4.1 has been out for a while. I'm starting to
> >> see other libraries depend on 2.4.1, which makes it tricky to link Mesos
> >> into the same project.
> >>
> >> Matei
>
>

Re: How hard would it be to upgrade the default protobuf version that Mesos depends on?

[Matei Zaharia <ma...@eecs.berkeley.edu>]

Okay, in that case, do you think it's worth doing it for the first release, or should we leave it till later? I'm okay either way, but later versions of Spark will need 2.4.1 because stuff like Akka is using it. I agree we shouldn't delay the release for minor things though.

Matei

On Mar 29, 2012, at 9:37 PM, Benjamin Hindman wrote:

> Most likely this is very straightforward. Possibly as easy as replacing the
> tar.gz in third_party and changing the third_party/versions.am to use
> "2.4.1" instead of "2.3.0".
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Matei Zaharia <ma...@eecs.berkeley.edu>wrote:
> 
>> Just wondering, because 2.4.1 has been out for a while. I'm starting to
>> see other libraries depend on 2.4.1, which makes it tricky to link Mesos
>> into the same project.
>> 
>> Matei

Re: How hard would it be to upgrade the default protobuf version that Mesos depends on?

[Benjamin Hindman <be...@eecs.berkeley.edu>]

Most likely this is very straightforward. Possibly as easy as replacing the
tar.gz in third_party and changing the third_party/versions.am to use
"2.4.1" instead of "2.3.0".


On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Matei Zaharia <ma...@eecs.berkeley.edu>wrote:

> Just wondering, because 2.4.1 has been out for a while. I'm starting to
> see other libraries depend on 2.4.1, which makes it tricky to link Mesos
> into the same project.
>
> Matei