+1 both matters Also agree with Juhani about FileChannel and Hadoop.io dependencies
On Jun 13, 2012, at 1:47 AM, Juhani Connolly <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 on both matters. > > As far as what goes in, I feel strongly that FileChannel needs to be > stabilized(see FLUME-1232 we have had multiple people reporting the same > issue in different scenarios). We should also probably remove the hadoop.io > dependencies on FileChannel and ResumableMemoryChannel. The JDBC channel is > just not efficient enough, and I think that having a(more or less) reliable > channel for high throughput applications is important. > > Other than that, I think we're in a pretty good place right now. I'm working > on the guava service issue which is rather far-reaching and would definitely > be better suited for the next version. > > On 06/13/2012 05:03 PM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote: >> +1 on making next stable release (1.2.) >> >> +1 for Mike to be the release manager >> >> Jarcec >> >> On Jun 13, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Mike Percy wrote: >> >>> Developers, >>> It has been nearly 3 months since we released Flume 1.1.0. Since the 1.1.0 >>> release, we have had 117 commits to the trunk, and 114 JIRAs have been >>> marked "Resolved Fixed" with a target of v1.2.0. This flurry of activity >>> represents a whole slew of new features and a bunch of bug fixes. >>> >>> Because of the above, I think we should release a Flume 1.2.0 to the world >>> within 2-3 weeks. I propose that I be the release manager for this release. >>> To that end, I would like to cut an SVN branch pretty soon to stabilize and >>> test the code in advance of the release. >>> >>> In addition, I'd like to gather input on what other devs would like to see >>> included in a 1.2.0 release. >>> >>> Aside from a few JIRAs already marked as Patch Available, the one thing I'd >>> really like to make happen is a once-over on the user guide to cover the >>> latest features. I'm willing to help. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Mike >>> >>> >
