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
Chris Douglas 2013-02-25, 21:50
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we need a transition period when any kinks are worked out of
> 347 but I don't think we need one alpha/beta release where both
> mechanisms are supported (because 2246 was just a short term solution
> rather than a long term commitment).  Ideally we'd get 347 in branch-2
> for 2.0.4-beta and have that release to address issues that come up to
> fix for GA.  Cloudera is actively testing 347 and parts of the
> community are eager to pick it up so I think that would work out
> timing wise.  Reasonable?

ATM's suggestion of removing HDFS-2246 in trunk, but not branch-2, is
a rational compromise: it allows some period for others to adapt, but
not an indefinite one. It's not clear what you're proposing, if
anything.

Nicholas/Suresh: have you had a chance to review HDFS-347, yet? -C

> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I agree that HDFS-2246 is a short term solution and we should not keep it there forever.  However, we still need a transition period to replace an old mechanism by a new one.  No?
>>
>> Tsz-Wo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>  From: Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tsz Wo Sze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 10:24 AM
>> Subject: Re: VOTE: HDFS-347 merge
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I still do not see a valid reason to remove HDFS-2246 immediately.  Some users may have insecure clusters and they don't want to change their configuration.
>>
>> Because it doesn't make sense to support multiple mechanisms for the
>> same thing.
>>
>> 2246 was always intended to be a *short term solution* util 347 was
>> completed, eg see Sanjay's first comment on 2246:   "A shortcut has
>> been proposed where the client access the hdfs file blocks directly...
>> This is non-invasive and is a good short term solution till HDFS-347
>> is completed."
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eli