On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <szets...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I still do not see a valid reason to remove HDFS-2246 immediately. Some > users may have insecure clusters and they don't want to change their > configuration. > > BTW, is Unix Domain Socket supported by all Unix-like systems? Does anyone > can confirm that or show some counterexamples?
UNIX domain sockets are supported on MacOS, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Linux, etc etc. Their behavior is standardized by POSIX and implemented by all POSIX OSes... although there are some OS-specific behaviors which we avoid. Colin > > > Tsz-Wo > > > > ________________________________ > From: Aaron T. Myers <a...@cloudera.com> > To: "hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org>; Tsz Wo Sze > <szets...@yahoo.com> > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 6:40 PM > Subject: Re: VOTE: HDFS-347 merge > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <szets...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Another >> substantive concern is that HDFS-347 is not as well tested as >> HDFS-2246. So, we should keep HDFS-2246 around for sometime and remove >> it later. Is this the usual practice? >> > > I'm proposing we do just that - keep HDFS-2246 around in branch-2 to let > HDFS-347 soak a bit on trunk and then remove HDFS-2246 from branch-2 once > we're confident in HDFS-347 and trunk adds Windows support. As Colin > pointed out, this VOTE has always been about only merging this branch to > trunk. > > > -- > Aaron T. Myers > Software Engineer, Cloudera
