Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HDFS >> mail # dev >> VOTE: HDFS-347 merge


Copy link to this message
-
Re: VOTE: HDFS-347 merge
Eli, you've sent the same email a half dozen times in the last ~24
hours. You might try a different tactic.

Suresh, if you're willing to "support and maintain" HDFS-2246, do you
have cycles to propose a patch to the HDFS-347 branch reintegrating
HDFS-2246 with the simplifications you outlined? In your review, did
you find anything else you'd like to address prior to the merge, or is
this the only item? -C

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Suresh Srinivas
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I assume you mean in trunk?  Given that ATM's proposal is to only
>>> remove HDFS-2246 from branch-2 once (a) we're confident in HDFS-347
>>> and (b) adds Windows support, and we won't be releasing from trunk any
>>> time soon -  from a user perspective - HDFS-2246 will only be replaced
>>> with HDFS-347 until it supports Windows.  Ie ATM's compromise appears
>>> to satisfy your requirement.
>>>
>>
>> This means, HDFS-347 becomes available in branch-2 only when the
>> corresponding windows work completes. Given that there is interest
>> in HDFS-347 (see Andrew's email), not removing HDFS-2246 will make
>> it available in an Apache release sooner.
>>
>> I am not sure why removing HDFS-2246 is so important in HDFS-347? Is it
>> because you need to spend bunch of time to rework the code to add it back?
>
> Yes, this would require updating all the code to make the fallback
> paths to work properly and re-testing. Given that all the patches
> posted to 347 have removed 2246 for a while now (this is not a new
> approach, Colin has been giving heads up months now about the patches
> and the merge), and 2246 was supposed to be a short-term fix (2246 was
> only supported on the condition that 347 was a wholesale replacement),
> it doesn't seem right to hold up 347 up for Windows support given that
> Windows support has not been merged to trunk yet, is not in any Apache
> release, etc. Personally I don't like establishing the precedent here
> that we can hold up a merge due to requirements from an unmerged
> branch.
>
> We'd all like to see 347 show up in branch-2 soon, and the original
> proposal to merge 347 accomplishes that, it's one of the downsides of
> the compromise for Windows.
>
> Thanks,
> Eli
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Suresh Srinivas
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I assume you mean in trunk?  Given that ATM's proposal is to only
>>> remove HDFS-2246 from branch-2 once (a) we're confident in HDFS-347
>>> and (b) adds Windows support, and we won't be releasing from trunk any
>>> time soon -  from a user perspective - HDFS-2246 will only be replaced
>>> with HDFS-347 until it supports Windows.  Ie ATM's compromise appears
>>> to satisfy your requirement.
>>>
>>
>> This means, HDFS-347 becomes available in branch-2 only when the
>> corresponding windows work completes. Given that there is interest
>> in HDFS-347 (see Andrew's email), not removing HDFS-2246 will make
>> it available in an Apache release sooner.
>>
>> I am not sure why removing HDFS-2246 is so important in HDFS-347? Is it
>> because you need to spend bunch of time to rework the code to add it back?
>
> Yes, this would require updating all the code to make the fallback
> paths to work properly and re-testing. Given that all the patches
> posted to 347 have removed 2246 for a while now (this is not a new
> approach, Colin has been giving heads up months now about the patches
> and the merge), and 2246 was supposed to be a short-term fix (2246 was
> only supported on the condition that 347 was a wholesale replacement),
> it doesn't seem right to hold up 347 up for Windows support given that
> Windows support has not been merged to trunk yet, is not in any Apache
> release, etc. Personally I don't like establishing the precedent here
> that we can hold up a merge due to requirements from an unmerged
> branch.