+1 IMO we should hold off on branch-1 unless people really need it.
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Tsz Wo Sze <szets...@yahoo.com> wrote: > +1 > > Since no one is objecting, I will merge HDFS-744 to 2.0. > > For 1.x, it needs more thoughts because it is likely to be an incompatible > change. > > > Tsz-Wo > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> > To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org > Cc: lars hofhansl <lhofha...@yahoo.com> > Sent: Friday, June 1, 2012 10:04 AM > Subject: Re: hsync in hadoop 2.0? > > +1, it's protocol-compatible, I don't see any reason not to put it in 2.0.x. > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: >> +1 for 2.0 >> >> For those trying to stabilize that for deployment early next year, commit >> of this only to trunk won't help as much, though a private backport could >> happen in that case. >> >> - Andy >> >> On Friday, June 1, 2012, lars hofhansl wrote: >> >>> HDFS-744 adds support for true durable sync for DFSOutputStream.hsync(). >>> This is useful for HBase (among others) and I created a matching patch in >>> HBASE-5954. >>> >>> I would like to port this back into Hadoop 2.0 and maybe even 1.0. >>> A 2.0 patch is already attached to HDFS-744. (The 1.0 patch would be quite >>> different, but the underlying implementation would be the same) >>> >>> >>> If I understand correctly Hadoop 2.0 is not out of alpha, yet. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> -- Lars >>> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> >> - Andy >> >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein >> (via Tom White) > > > > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera
