Looks good to me ( I saw this just now). Thanks for rolling 0.19.1. dhruba
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Nigel Daley <[email protected]> wrote: > It sounds like we agree that we should release 0.19.1 with append throwing > a UnsupportedOperationException and sync getting the same reduced semantics > as 0.18.3. > > I have filed 2 Jira's to get this done: > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-5224 > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-5225 > > When these are committed, I will roll a Hadoop 0.19.1 candidate release. > > Nige > > > On Feb 2, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Doug Judd wrote: > > Sounds good. I would much rather wait and have fsync() done correctly in >> 0.20 than get some sort of hacked version in 0.19. I'll create a couple >> of >> issues and mark them for 0.20 Thanks. >> >> - Doug >> >> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Owen O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Feb 2, 2009, at 12:51 PM, Doug Judd wrote: >>> >>> What do you recommend? Is there anyway we could get these two issues >>> >>>> fixed >>>> for 0.19.1, or should I file issues for them and get them on the >>>> schedule >>>> for 0.19.2? >>>> >>>> >>> Given the outstanding problems and general level of uncertainty, I'd >>> favor >>> releasing a 0.19.1 with the equivalent of the 0.18.3 disable on fsync and >>> append. Let's get them fixed in 0.20 first and then we can debate whether >>> the rewards of pushing them back into an 0.19.2 would make sense. I'm >>> pretty >>> uncomfortable at the moment with how the entire functional complex seems >>> to >>> cause a continuous stream of problems. >>> >>> -- Owen >>> >>> >
