Bright wasn't aware of the discussion so far. Looks like we have two -1's, two +1's and one -0
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd switch from -1 to +1 if we can get +1s from people who have tried > it on clusters with several different real existing apps written by > several different teams. EG if we can verify that the CIQ workload, > the SU workload, and the TM workload all work with this patch with no > adverse effects, seems reasonable to commit. But just passing unit > tests doesn't seem like enough to me since it changes behavior in a > way that is difficult to predict. > > -Todd > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > One option is to publish the backported patch which passes all unit tests > > and 'certified' by people who play trial on it. > > > > The switch proposed by Todd is nice but difficult to implement. > > > > Cheers > > > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> We could query user@ before considering commit. > >> > Let's do this. > >> > > >> > Objections ? > >> > > >> > >> I don't think most users will know whether this will break them until > >> it's "too late". Hence defaulting to current behavior, and letting > >> people switch it if the current behavior isn't working for them. > >> > >> -Todd > >> -- > >> Todd Lipcon > >> Software Engineer, Cloudera > >> > > > > > > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera >
