hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremy Davis <jerda...@speakeasy.net>
Subject Re: 0.21 Release
Date Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:17:40 GMT
Thank you for your reply,

So what would be your (or anyones) advice on getting, HDFS sync/flush/ 
append functionality?
You seem to indicate that 0.21 branch as is might not be the best  
idea, with your preference being a patch set against 0.20.

We definitely have an application for this specific functionality, and  
I need to provide some direction/answers in this area for my colleagues.

For example, I might say: We will install the current 0.21 now, and  
develop against it.. But in X time we will install CDH2 (and get all  
the goodness it brings), and then apply a given patch set against it.  
Is this in line with what you are thinking? If so, could I get your  
perceived level of effort, maybe a time frame? April/May/June/ etc..

I'm sure I'm not the only one that has plans for this feature, as it's  
in  "Hadoop: the Definitive Guide" by O'Reilly published in September  


On Mar 19, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Stack wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Jeremy Davis  
> <jerdavis@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> ...and I also saw release 0.21 as is with stack as the release  
>> manager. Was
>> there a final decision on this off list?
> On the above, I was toying with the idea of being release manager for
> releasing as hadoop 0.21.0 what is in current 0.21 hadoop branch but I
> subsequently decided against it after chatting with folks and figuring
> that the only group that seemed interested in driving a release of the
> hadoop 0.21 branch was the hbase crew.  If I were to guess, an hadoop
> vouched for by a couple of hbasers with their spotty hdfs and
> mapreduce knowledge probably wouldn't have the penetration of a
> release backed by, say, a Yahoo.  No one would trust their data to
> such a release.  If no data in hadoop 0.21 clusters, hbase wouldn't
> have anything to run against.  So I let it go and figured time could
> be spent better elsewhere; e.g. helping test the set of patches that
> could get us a sync/flush/append on a patched hadoop 0.20 (hdfs-200,
> etc.).
> Sorry, I should have added a note to cited thread that I'd wandered...
> St.Ack

View raw message