hadoop-common-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Todd Lipcon (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HADOOP-9151) Include RPC error info in RpcResponseHeader instead of sending it separately
Date Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:43:13 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9151?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13537565#comment-13537565
] 

Todd Lipcon commented on HADOOP-9151:
-------------------------------------

{quote}
We are talking about Apache 2.0.x-alpha release here. How CDH manages its distribution, backward
compatibility does not guide how Apache releases are done or what goes into Apache releases.
The fact that you chose include a content that is not in trunk or decided to tag a release
in some other way should not put constraints on the Apache releases. Wearing my Apache hat
on, if this is the main reason for -1, then it has no merit.
If there was no issue to CDH distribution, would you have objected to this change?
I would like others to comment on why a vendor's distribution or compatibility to it should
put artificial constraints in Apache.
{quote}

Regardless of the existence of CDH, I would have argued that HDFS and Common should have been
labeled "Stable" months ago. For people who don't care to run MR2, I've found HDFS2 to be
far more stable than HDFS1, in addition to offering many other benefits. But we've already
beaten that horse to death on the mailing list.

So, given that I already consider HDFS to be "stable", and know people running this branch
in production scenarios where a rolling upgrade is required, I would make the same argument
that we should not break compatibility.

bq. I would like others to comment on why a vendor's distribution or compatibility to it should
put artificial constraints in Apache.

There are lots of people out there using this distro. If we break compatibility, people will
have a harder time moving from the distro _back_ to Apache, if that's the angle you want to
look at it from.

----

If this issue were a case of a big performance improvement, or a security issue, or even a
feature improvement, I would weigh it stronger. But given that it's a code cleanup that brings
no improvement at all to users, and only a very slight improvement for the 3 or 4 people in
the world who are trying to implement Hadoop-compatible RPC in another langauge (one of whom
happens to be me!), I think it needs much more motivation.
                
> Include RPC error info in RpcResponseHeader instead of sending it separately
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HADOOP-9151
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9151
>             Project: Hadoop Common
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>            Reporter: Sanjay Radia
>            Assignee: Sanjay Radia
>         Attachments: HADOOP-9151.patch
>
>


--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Mime
View raw message