The append solution in 0.22 that you are referring to was supposed to be out 13-15 months ago. Pardon if I look for solutions that deploy 4 months ago (as the 0.20 append branch did).
Another 12-15 months of delay is not exactly helping HDFS either. -ryan On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Jakob Homan <jgho...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's difficult to support this proposal knowing how much time would be > spent preparing an official release, continuing to support it and > continuing to two support two separate implementations of append. I > believe that effort would be better spent getting out a kick-ass 22 > (or, barring that, a *really* kick-ass 23). > > The Promised Land that we say we're all trying to get to is regular, > timely, feature-complete, tested, innovative but stable releases of > new versions of Apache Hadoop. Missing out any one of those criteria > discovered will continue (and has continued) the current situation > where quasi-official branches and outside distributions fill the void > such a release should. The effort to maintain this offical branch and > fix the bugs that will be discovered could be better spent moving us > closer to that goal. > > I'm certainly sympathetic to the difficult position our quagmire has > placed HBase into. However, the current proposal would hurt HDFS to > help HBase. The best solution for that project, as well as for HDFS, > is to get HDFS back to a healthy release cycle; not prolong or codify > the current ad-hoc state of affairs. Let's stop digging this hole. > -jakob > > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:33 AM, M. C. Srivas <mcsri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> [ Sorry if this is be-laboring the obvious ] >> >> There are two append solutions floating around, and they are incompatible >> with each other. Thus, the two "branches" will forever remain incompatible >> with each other, regardless of how they are numbered (0.22, 0.23, 0.20.3, >> e.t.c.) >> >> Unless both are merged into one branch, and a switch provided to "use >> HDFS-200 append" or "use 0.22 append", we have effectively split Hadoop into >> two. >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Owen O'Malley <omal...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Roy T. Fielding <field...@gbiv.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Features are not release version tags. If there is a security bug >>> > found then we would have to release a new version of the append >>> > version, and a round of severe trout slapping would result. >>> > >>> >>> Yeah, it isn't a perfect solution and it doesn't scale to a second tag, but >>> the problem is that this is effectively a release branch between 0.20 and >>> 0.21. Of course I agree that any critical bugs would need to be fixed in >>> the >>> append branch as well as the 0.20 and 0.21 branches. >>> >>> If you want to stick to pure numbers and we want to leave ourselves a way >>> to >>> bugfix the 0.20 branch without append, we'd could use a version string like >>> 0.20.100, etc. Not pretty, but it does preserve the numeric ordering and >>> suggest a version jump. >>> >>> If I remember right, there were also protocol changes in the append branch, >>> which was another reason we didn't want to put it directly into the 0.20 >>> branch. >>> >>> -- Owen >>> >> >
