[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-6253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13161012#comment-13161012
]
Todd Lipcon commented on HADOOP-6253:
-------------------------------------
I tend to agree with Steve -- I see this as the same question about "contrib"s.
Either software is part of Hadoop, in which case we should have several
committers familiar with the code, or it's not, in which case it shouldn't be
shipped with Hadoop.
Now that we're mavenized, it seems like it should be straight-forward to
maintain projects like this in a separate project with separate release cycles,
and have their trunk builds depend on our published nightly SNAPSHOTs. So we
still get the benefits of continuous integration of the projects, but we don't
have extra stuff in our codebase that is only used by a small segment of users.
So, I'd say I'm -0. Not enough to actually veto, but I'd be interested to know
what the perceived benefit is for checking this into the main tree?
> Add a Ceph FileSystem interface.
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-6253
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-6253
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: fs
> Reporter: Gregory Farnum
> Assignee: Gregory Farnum
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: ceph
> Attachments: HADOOP-6253.patch, HADOOP-6253.patch, HADOOP-6253.patch,
> HADOOP-6253.patch, HADOOP-6253.patch
>
>
> The experimental distributed filesystem Ceph does not have a single point of
> failure, uses a distributed metadata cluster instead of a single in-memory
> server, and might be of use to some Hadoop users.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
