Todd Lipcon wrote:
With HDFS-200 we'd also need HDFS-142
Good to know. I' have to admit to being puzzled by HDFS-200, since Nicholas resolved it as a duplicate on 7 January, yet Dhruba's continued to post patches to it.
Dhruba, Stack: do you have any thoughts on the appropriateness of making a release with HDFS-200 & HDFS-142?
and potentially other fixes yet to be determined (this append work based on 200 is still ongoing). I don't think it will be "stable release" quality within a few weeks.
I assume that HDFS-200 as-is does more good than harm, no? Also, 1.0.0 doesn't need to be flawless. If we identify critical bugs after its release, then we'll make a 1.0.1 release. We might even call the first 1.0 release something like 1.0.0 alpha. That said, I do believe it will still be stable sooner than the release from trunk.
Doug
