Return-Path: 
 <mapreduce-dev-return-3215-apmail-hadoop-mapreduce-dev-archive=hadoop.apache.org@hadoop.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-mapreduce-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Received: (qmail 47071 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2011 01:08:46 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 30 Mar 2011 01:08:46 -0000
Received: (qmail 46390 invoked by uid 500); 30 Mar 2011 01:08:43 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-mapreduce-dev-archive@hadoop.apache.org
Received: (qmail 46189 invoked by uid 500); 30 Mar 2011 01:08:43 -0000
Mailing-List: contact mapreduce-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:mapreduce-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:mapreduce-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org>
List-Id: <mapreduce-dev.hadoop.apache.org>
Reply-To: mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Received: (qmail 46080 invoked by uid 99); 30 Mar 2011 01:08:43 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 01:08:43 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0
	tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of shv.hadoop@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.83.48 as permitted sender)
Received: from [74.125.83.48] (HELO mail-gw0-f48.google.com) (74.125.83.48)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 01:08:37 +0000
Received: by gwj22 with SMTP id 22so436689gwj.35
        for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 18:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=zGveut4/cCfJ/YojLKop6Q71/cHrFGWGGAqbpV8YDTo=;
        b=NQw6vSPYhj7F9thVCpqxCYkEWrbYHYStcG7Heu2k9gbcCPc6PikJJ6polJLnNh3xbm
         PsohjHhSB8fGId1kR9j/YQ0UFdmSVFYEKHf1FdKYDC/XcZY85SAY5m5Hl/FHePuyFSgN
         uHCgZi/4THfs3Up7nA8FJKcLO5bt3ar+nMykk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=OCjf1y7ML03vRFN7feOZFHR64TcoEENeB8MdAUIFOi7dUmKD44DRFiQpz/vH44zqZZ
         BmnELcOs39n5Vkp3FeD2ys85E/mnnjoNvFuzEB+QYMDqI14pIsnnLsKcx5D6w51sTC2Z
         trFUcvqNLaLh1NES1ORUibvVJKzvTN3NhqPbI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.61.9 with SMTP id j9mr831824yba.238.1301447295995; Tue, 29
 Mar 2011 18:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.146.168.19 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 18:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimvmfss7Y8H-fZgg5-=HfeGfrQ_mHLgevAmsi=6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Z6jaYVbFTt3bAQRVsj7CuSKBcK1+ims079ss8@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D920128.2070907@apache.org>
	<AANLkTi==Pxuga-VRLyXyJrzwVWjY+aak+1LYPtJjhE7d@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimHbkgBJxxOJChpa1+zDU0m7-o63toJ+pG4uPLu@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimvmfss7Y8H-fZgg5-=HfeGfrQ_mHLgevAmsi=6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 18:08:15 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinb3AaZ0VorQWvCFDeLMgb8JYkfVmZf8T7mbw+B@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: VOTE: Committing HADOOP-6949 to 0.22 branch
From: Konstantin Shvachko <shv.hadoop@gmail.com>
To: mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org, common-dev@hadoop.apache.org,
	hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd4c0e0c5919d049fa8cf30

--000e0cd4c0e0c5919d049fa8cf30
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Nigel,
The nature of incompatibility is that the RPC version is changing, which
means
VersionedProtocol-s become incompatible all at once. As opposed to say
only DatanodeProtocol or mr.ClientProtocol.

Doug is right because of our strict requirements for protocol compatibility
this
will not affect users upgrading to 0.22.

Matt, thanks for checking and testing.

--Konstantin

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Jakob Homan <jghoman@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
> n.b. that the vote lost hdfs and common dev at some point.  I've added
> them back.
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Amit Sangroya <sangroyaamit@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Stephen Boesch <javadba@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> +1
> >>
> >> 2011/3/29 Doug Cutting <cutting@apache.org>
> >>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> I don't think this creates an incompatibility.  It changes the RPC wire
> >>> format, but we already require that clients and servers run identical
> >>> builds.  No application that ran with a prior version of Hadoop would
> be
> >>> broken by this change when it upgrades to this version of Hadoop.
> >>>
> >>> Doug
> >>>
> >>> On 03/28/2011 09:39 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
> >>> > HADOOP-6949 introduced a very important optimization to the RPC
> layer.
> >>> Based
> >>> > on the benchmarks presented in HDFS-1583 this provides an order of
> >>> magnitude
> >>> > improvement of current RPC implementation.
> >>> > RPC is a common component of Hadoop projects. Many of them should
> benefit
> >>> > from this change. But since this is an incompatible change it
> requires a
> >>> > vote to be included into a previous branch.
> >>> > Please vote for inclusion of this change into branch 0.22.
> >>> >
> >>> > +1 from me.
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks,
> >>> > --Konstantin
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

--000e0cd4c0e0c5919d049fa8cf30--