[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-6521?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12828328#action_12828328
]
Suresh Srinivas commented on HADOOP-6521:
-----------------------------------------
> I think it is better to update both UMASK_LABEL and DEPRECATED_UMASK_LABEL in
> setUMask(..).
sounds reasonable. Though only one of them is going to be used
> Also when both UMASK_LABEL and DEPRECATED_UMASK_LABEL are set in conf and
> they have different values, should we throw an exception?
In release 20, the server config will be setup with UMASK_LABEL. The user can
override the default by:
# Calling FsPermission.setUMask() (this has been addressed)
# By setting configuration param either by calling conf.set() or by specifying
umask in command line (see manual tests posted above).
Given that I think we should allow these two configurations to have separate
value. Further, giving higher priority to deprecated key, assuming the user is
likely to use it is the right choice. If the user happens to use the new key
there is no conflict.
> FsPermission:SetUMask not updated to use new-style umask setting.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-6521
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-6521
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Jakob Homan
> Attachments: hadoop-6521.rel20.patch
>
>
> FsPermission:
> 221 /** Set the user file creation mask (umask) */
> 222 public static void setUMask(Configuration conf, FsPermission umask) {
>
> 223 conf.setInt(UMASK_LABEL, umask.toShort());
> 224 }
> Needs to be updated to not use a decimal value. This is a bug introduced by
> HADOOP-6234.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
