hadoop-common-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dhruba Borthakur <dhr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Hadoop 0.19.1
Date Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:14:35 GMT
Looks good to me ( I saw this just now). Thanks for rolling 0.19.1.

dhruba

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Nigel Daley <ndaley@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> It sounds like we agree that we should release 0.19.1 with append throwing
> a UnsupportedOperationException and sync getting the same reduced semantics
> as 0.18.3.
>
> I have filed 2 Jira's to get this done:
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-5224
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-5225
>
> When these are committed, I will roll a Hadoop 0.19.1 candidate release.
>
> Nige
>
>
> On Feb 2, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Doug Judd wrote:
>
>  Sounds good.  I would much rather wait and have fsync() done correctly in
>> 0.20 than get some sort of hacked version in 0.19.  I'll create a couple
>> of
>> issues and mark them for 0.20  Thanks.
>>
>> - Doug
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Owen O'Malley <omalley@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>  On Feb 2, 2009, at 12:51 PM, Doug Judd wrote:
>>>
>>> What do you recommend?  Is there anyway we could get these two issues
>>>
>>>> fixed
>>>> for 0.19.1, or should I file issues for them and get them on the
>>>> schedule
>>>> for 0.19.2?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Given the outstanding problems and general level of uncertainty, I'd
>>> favor
>>> releasing a 0.19.1 with the equivalent of the 0.18.3 disable on fsync and
>>> append. Let's get them fixed in 0.20 first and then we can debate whether
>>> the rewards of pushing them back into an 0.19.2 would make sense. I'm
>>> pretty
>>> uncomfortable at the moment with how the entire functional complex seems
>>> to
>>> cause a continuous stream of problems.
>>>
>>> -- Owen
>>>
>>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message