I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.  I’ve added their user@ and dev@ lists to this thread.

I do not see BKJM being used in practice.  Removing it from trunk would be attractive in terms of less code for Hadoop to maintain and build, but if we find existing users that want to keep it, I wouldn’t object.

--Chris Nauroth

On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

    Hi All,
   
       BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA was implemented and there was no QJM implemented.
       Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by many production environment.
       I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from trunk?
   
       Are there any users of BKJM exists?
   
    -Vinay
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB