+1
> On 4/2/10, 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.
