hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jakob Homan <jgho...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop Security Release off Yahoo! patchset
Date Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:03:40 GMT
> On another thread discussing hadoop-0.20-append as a separate branch, most people agreed
that new features shouldn't be added to 0.20, now we have a major feature and we are all gung
ho for it..

Not all are.  I'm against it for the all the same reasons I was
against 20 append.  This is also being used as a wedge to get the
append work in as .200.  My position is that every iota effort of
releasing another 20 branch is an iota not spent on getting us a
kick-ass 22.  20 was great, and we had a lot of wonderful times
together, but it's time to move on and see other releases.

But, this is a volunteer effort, and if others want to put the effort
in, they're free to do so.
-jg

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Nigel Daley <ndaley@mac.com> wrote:
> Yup, I'll say it again.  The process ain't perfect but it's good enough IMO. Thank you
Yahoo! for your contribution.
>
> Clearly these patch will need review before commit when going into trunk.
>
> Let's move on to 0.22.
>
> Nige
>
> On Jan 14, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>
>> I tend to second most of Ian's points here.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 06:14, Ian Holsman <hadoop@holsman.net> wrote:
>>> (with my Apache hat on)
>>> I'm -0.5 on doing this as one big mega-patch and not including append (as opposed
to a series of smaller patches).
>>
>> #1: we are creating a precedent of a "brain-dump" here. Although, it
>> isn't the first one in the history of OSS. Infamous Apple "patch" to
>> OpenBSD is another one ;)
>>
>> #2: How to spell 'back door' any one?
>>
>> #5: "almost 10 internal releases" Arun has mentioned above might be,
>> perhaps, considered as a great quality control effort. Also, not to
>> mention virtual impossibility to create a test plan to validate a
>> giant features patch.
>>
>>> BTW, I'd like to point out a discrepancy here:
>>>
>>> On another thread discussing hadoop-0.20-append as a separate branch, most people
agreed that new features shouldn't be added to 0.20, now we have a major feature and we are
all gung ho for it..
>>
>> And this ^^^
>>
>> But, hey I guess it's totally worth it!
>>  Cos
>>
>>> --Ian
>>>
>>> On Jan 14, 2011, at 2:21 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Stack wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> (Man, it was looking good there for a second when 0.20.100 was about
>>>>> security+append!)
>>>>>
>>>>> Good luck w/ the release Arun.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>> We might be following your 0.20.100 with a 0.20.200 append.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Super!
>>>>
>>>> Arun
>>>
>>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message