Thanks. I'm going to try it out right away. > From: Ryan Rawson > I've been using the new master a bit, and the improvements are just > too dramatic to ignore or delay. Instant table transitions, clusters > that actually shut down, etc, etc. > > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > wrote: > > If JG is apprehensive about putting the new master > into 0.90, that's good enough for me. But I'll vote +0. I'm > too unfamiliar with the details.
- Re: old master to 0.90 and new master to 0.92? (was RE:... Jean-Daniel Cryans
- Re: old master to 0.90 and new master to 0.92? (was RE:... Stack
- Re: old master to 0.90 and new master to 0.92? (wa... Todd Lipcon
- Re: old master to 0.90 and new master to 0.92? (wa... Lars Francke
- Re: old master to 0.90 and new master to 0.92?... Stack
- RE: old master to 0.90 and new master to 0.92?... Jonathan Gray
- Re: old master to 0.90 and new master to 0... Todd Lipcon
- Re: old master to 0.90 and new master ... Andrew Purtell
- Re: old master to 0.90 and new ma... Ryan Rawson
- Re: old master to 0.90 and new ma... Andrew Purtell
- RE: old master to 0.90 and new ma... Jonathan Gray