Mailing-List: contact hdfs-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <104245.66328.qm@web65507.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <E5A3355B-6271-4733-9DDC-11DECA1AC64E@yahoo-inc.com>
  <20100127025302.GB46526@wlanvpn-mc2e-246-200.corp.yahoo.com>
  <4B5FAEB3.2060808@gmail.com>
 <45f85f71001261909s62184ccek5b8f0fd268f9ab68@mail.gmail.com>
  <7c962aed1001271545g48ca363bt396e38d39697978a@mail.gmail.com>
 <45f85f71001271714p1e0ec0d5s73d516e8b623aeb0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:14:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Rolling a Hadoop 0.20.2
To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Cc: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <45f85f71001271714p1e0ec0d5s73d516e8b623aeb0@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

So the list of HDFS issues for next 0.20.x or 0.21 most relevant to HBase
stability I have is:

   127
   200 (well, hflush)
   630
   793


Sound about right? Anything important I'm missing? 

  -  Andy


----- Original Message ----
> From: Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com>
> To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Sent: Thu, January 28, 2010 9:14:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Rolling a Hadoop 0.20.2
> 
> I don't think 101 is a real blocker - I haven't been able to reliably
> produce it. HDFS-793 fixes most of the issues I've seen in practice, and we
> now have a new patch in branch-20 which should fix that.
> 
> 127 would be nice - there's a patch on that JIRA waiting for review as
> below.
> 
> -Todd
> 
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Stack wrote:
> 
> > If the new release included (fixedup) hdfs-127 and hdfs-101, the hbase
> > crew would be big fans of an hadoop 0.20.2.
> > St.Ack
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> > > HDFS-127 was originally committed, then rolled back from 0.20 as it
> > caused
> > > test timeouts due to infinite loop. I put a new patch up there but it has
> > > not been reviewed, and thus not committed.
> > >
> > > Owen: is there a particular rush for 0.20.2 or can we hold out for these
> > > patches?
> > >
> > > -Todd
> > >
> > > 2010/1/26 Kay Kay 
> > >
> > >> Is HDFS-127 going to be  part of it ? (seems to have been committed as
> > per
> > >> the jira).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 1/26/10 6:53 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> +1
> > >>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 09:56AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> I'm planning on rolling a Hadoop 0.20.2 today. Are there any blockers
> > >>>> that can't wait?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -- Owen
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >