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

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


+
Colin McCabe 2013-04-01, 23:32
+
Suresh Srinivas 2013-04-02, 00:04
+
Colin McCabe 2013-04-02, 01:58
+
Colin McCabe 2013-04-02, 17:38
+
Suresh Srinivas 2013-04-02, 21:08
+
Tsz Wo Sze 2013-04-03, 06:47
+
Tsz Wo Sze 2013-04-05, 04:11
Copy link to this message
-
Re: VOTE: HDFS-347 merge
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Colin,
>
> We usually conclude the last VOTE before starting a new one.  Otherwise,
> people may be confused between the VOTEs.  (In case you don't know our
> convention.  Please check with someone before starting a VOTE.  Thanks.)
>

>
> -1
> * The previous VOTE started by Colin has not been concluded.
>

I can't tell if you're being serious about this... April fools was a few
days ago. This is ridiculous - the previous vote was called 2/17 and
explicitly said it was ending on 2/24. Do you think anyone's confused about
which vote is active a month and a half later?
>
> * The branch is not ready.  The code misuses DataTransferProtocol.
> Documentation of the new conf properties are missing.  Also, the code in
> the branch needs to be polished.  See HDFS-347 and HDFS-4661 for more
> details.
>

During the last vote thread, both you and Suresh said you'd actively review
the changes Colin made in response to your review feedback. Then, after
Colin posted a patch to address your complaints, it sat unreviewed for a
month before I reviewed and committed it. Now, Colin calls another vote,
and you find more nit picks in the branch, which again are not new code and
have been there for months.

I don't see how you can possibly think this is a reasonable way of going
about your duties as a reviewer of the branch, nor why you are voting -1
due to a few small nits in the codebase. Actions like these limit the
growth of our contributor base and discourage others from joining our
development community -- I for one am quite impressed with Colin's patience
throughout this ridiculous ordeal, but many others wouldn't have the same
fortitude.

If you find issues with the branch, put up a patch and let's get on with
it. This back-and-forthing is wasting all of our time.

Todd

>
> ________________________________
>  From: Colin McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 7:32 AM
> Subject: VOTE: HDFS-347 merge
>
> Hi all,
>
> I think it's time to merge the HDFS-347 branch back to trunk.  It's been
> under
> review and testing for several months, and provides both a performance
> advantage, and the ability to use short-circuit local reads without
> compromising system security.
>
> Previously, we tried to merge this and the objection was brought up that we
> should keep the old, insecure short-circuit local reads around so that
> platforms for which secure SCR had not yet been implemented could use it
> (e.g. Windows).  This has been addressed-- see HDFS-4538 for details.
> Suresh has also volunteered to maintain the insecure SCR code until secure
> SCR can be implemented for Windows.
>
> Please cast your vote by EOD Monday 4/8.
>
> best,
> Colin
>

--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera
+
Suresh Srinivas 2013-04-05, 04:40
+
Tsz Wo Sze 2013-04-07, 00:01
+
Tsz Wo Sze 2013-04-08, 23:34
+
Todd Lipcon 2013-04-08, 20:19
+
Colin McCabe 2013-04-08, 22:53
+
Aaron T. Myers 2013-04-11, 05:00
+
Colin McCabe 2013-04-11, 18:05
+
Azuryy Yu 2013-04-12, 01:37
+
Colin McCabe 2013-04-12, 20:06
+
Azuryy Yu 2013-04-12, 21:37
+
Aaron T. Myers 2013-04-13, 02:16
+
Colin McCabe 2013-04-08, 17:23