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: [DISCUSSION] Release process
Date Fri, 02 Apr 2010 04:31:47 GMT
We have been testing the HDFS append code for 0.20 (using HDFS-200,
HDFS-142), but I believe it is not ready for production yet. I am guessing
that there would be another two months of testing before I would classify
0.20.3 + HDFS-200 as production quality. HDFS-200 touches code paths that
would get triggered even if the append-sync feature is not used, hence I
would be hesitant to put it in any production release before additional
testing is done (it would get ready in one/two months timeframe from now)

thanks,
dhruba

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Amr Awadallah <aaa@cloudera.com> wrote:

> >  Companies wanting a 1.0 product could always pay Cloudera and get a v2
> product.
>
> lol :) good point Allen, lets please *not* adopt a 1.0 labeling for Apache
> Hadoop :)
>
> Seriously though, to avoid my previous comment about 1.0 labeling being
> misinterpreted, though I think the 1.0 labeling is important, I think it is
> much more *urgent* and *important* to get the release cycle back in order,
> which should focus on getting that done first.
>
> -- amr
>
>
> On 4/1/2010 2:31 PM, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/1/10 2:15 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)"
>> <chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In terms of the significance of the 1.0 labeling, I think it's important
>>> for
>>> adoption.
>>>
>>>
>> Companies wanting a 1.0 product could always pay Cloudera and get a v2
>> product. ;)
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Connect to me at http://www.facebook.com/dhruba

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