Mailing-List: contact general-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@hadoop.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns;
	h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:
	references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=xq85z/MNwv4ND8Ud59+bvnbDKub2b0YphA/ebbmaZZfO+MGJrG67ISwoK3VTEgYk
Message-ID: <4C6C1F70.4000300@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:59:12 -0700
From: Konstantin Shvachko <shv@yahoo-inc.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: general@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Should we define the Common committers as HDFS + MapReduce
 committers?
References: <7962BB4E-7176-44EB-A708-64881639E2AF@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <7962BB4E-7176-44EB-A708-64881639E2AF@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

+1

Do I understand correctly, with this proposal there will be no
common only committers? That is, there will be no committers to
common who are not either HDFS or MR committers.

--Konstantin

On 8/16/2010 2:38 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
> Since the project split, it is mostly required that any MapReduce or
> HDFS committers have access to change Common. We haven't had any cases
> where we wanted to nominate any one for just Common. Toward the goal
> of simplifying the structure, I'd propose that we define the Common
> committers as precisely the union of the HDFS committers and MapReduce
> committers.
>
> Clearly, I'm +1.
>
> -- Owen
>