Stack 2010-02-03, 06:22
Tsz Wo \ 2010-02-03, 07:12
Eli Collins 2010-02-03, 18:16
Todd Lipcon 2010-02-03, 19:15
Tsz Wo \ 2010-02-04, 21:30
Todd Lipcon 2010-02-08, 19:26
-Re: [VOTE] Commit HDFS-927 to both 0.20 and 0.21 branch?
Stack 2010-02-09, 01:09
Vote is closed (unless there is objection). I'll commit below in next
day or so.
Thanks to all who participated.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given people have had several days to vote, and there have been no
> -1s, this should be good to go in, right? We have two HDFS committer
> +1s (Stack and Nicholas) and nonbinding +1s from several others.
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is a friendly reminder for voting on committing HDFD-927 to 0.20 and 0.21.
>> Comiitters, please vote!
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> > From: Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 10:22:50 PM
>> > Subject: [VOTE] Commit HDFS-927 to both 0.20 and 0.21 branch?
>> > I'd like to open a vote on committing HDFS-927 to both hadoop branch
>> > 0.20 and to 0.21.
>> > HDFS-927 "DFSInputStream retries too many times for new block
>> > location" has an odd summary but in short, its a better HDFS-127
>> > "DFSClient block read failures cause open DFSInputStream to become
>> > unusable". HDFS-127 is an old, popular issue that refuses to die. We
>> > voted on having it committed to the 0.20 branch not too long ago, see
>> > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00401.html,
>> > only it broke TestFsck (See http://su.pr/1nylUn) so it was reverted.
>> > High-level, HDFS-127/HDFS-927 is about fixing DFSClient so it a good
>> > read cleans out the failures count (Previous failures 'stuck' though
>> > there may have been hours of successful reads in betwixt). When
>> > rolling hadoop 0.20.2 was proposed, a few fellas including myself
>> > raised a lack of HDFS-127 as an obstacle.
>> > HDFS-927 has been committed to TRUNK.
>> > I'm +1 on committing to 0.20 and to 0.21 branches.
>> > Thanks for taking the time to take a look into this issue.
>> > St.Ack
Andrew Purtell 2010-02-03, 07:22