On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > Please on committing HDFS-1024 to the hadoop 0.20 branch. > > Background: > > HDFS-1024 fixes possible trashing of fsimage because of failed copy > from 2NN and NN. Ordinarily, possible corruption of this proportion > would merit commit w/o need of a vote only Dhruba correctly notes that > UNLESS both NN and 2NN are upgraded, HDFS-1024 becomes an incompatible > change (the NN<->2NN communication will fail always). IMO, this > incompatible change can be plastered over with a release note; e.g. > WARNING, you MUST update NN and 2NN when you go to 0.20.3 hadoop. If > you agree with me, please vote +1 on commit. >
+1. If I recall correctly the NN and 2NN already do a very strict version check in branch 20, so it's not any more incompatible than any other change. (I think Dhruba made the version check less strict in the FB branch) -Todd -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
