Hi Jim, I can understand your problem. I can probably whip out a fix for HADOOP-4663 and HADOOP-4379 by the end of this week. It would be nice if somebody else (Hairong, Sanjay, Konstantin?) can volunteer to discuss and review the patches/fixes.
Nigel: wht is the proposed deadline for 0.20? thanks, dhruba On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Jim Kellerman (POWERSET) < [email protected]> wrote: > --1 > > HBase really needs 4379. My testing to date indicates that it does work > (although I have a bit more testing to do). > > I was ok with not putting it into 0.19.1 provided it was in 0.19.2 and > 0.20.0. > > It's a big problem for us now and is hurting our ability to keep our > community alive. (They will go to Cassandra or something else to ensure > reliability). > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nigel Daley [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 4:02 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Hadoop 0.20.0 > > > > Folks, > > > > Hadoop 0.19.1 is now available with the file append feature disabled. > > It's time to talk about a Hadoop 0.20.0 release. > > > > Hadoop 0.20.0 feature freeze date was almost 3 months ago. The last > > few blockers are now almost fixed (should be next week) except for > > HADOOP-4379. HADOOP-4379 is work that is needed to properly implement > > file append. > > > > *** I propose we move HADOOP-4379 off to release 0.21.0 and apply the > > same disabling of file append in Hadoop 0.20.0 that we put in place to > > get 0.19.1 released (HADOOP-5224 and HADOOP-5225). > > > > I will call a vote for 0.20.0 when blockers are fixed. > > > > Cheers, > > Nigel > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > Some Hadoop deployments have upgraded to 0.19.0. Clearly, the 0.19 > > > branch has issues and a 0.19.1 release is needed. > > > > > > Quality issues in the changes made for the file append feature have > > > prevented some from deploying Hadoop 0.19. One of these changes > > > (sync) has now been "fixed" by reducing its semantics in Hadoop > > > 0.18.3 (HADOOP-4997). This was necessary to stabilize the 0.18 > > > branch. > > > > > > I would like to propose that we apply this same "fix" to sync in > > > 0.19.1 and 0.20.0. Since append requires the full semantics of > > > sync, I propose we also disable append (perhaps throw > > > UnsupportedOperationException from API?). Yes, this would > > > unfortunately be an incompatible change between 0.19.0 and 0.19.1. > > > We can then take the time needed to fix append properly in 0.21.0. > > > > > > I will call a vote for 0.19.1 and 0.20.0 when blockers are fixed. > > > > > > Nigel > >
