bq. it would have been better to have included at that time the detailed explanation
Will pay attention next time such situation arises. Cheers On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > I reviewed this change. As I understand, neither the code before and after > is incorrect, but the improved behavior after the change allows us to pass > reliably on Hadoop 2 with its timing changes. I did fail to ask Ted to > write up a release note for the JIRA, so I am sorry for that. > > Also, Ted, if you reread this email thread, consider that when you sent the > one line email to Jon about HBASE-10142, it would have been better to have > included at that time the detailed explanation provided only after Jon > wrote back twice asking for it. > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > > I've spent some time reviewing HBASE-10142, There are some non-test > code > > > modifications still trying to determine if it is a serious problem or > not > > > on that side. Ted, is there a reason why this wasn't ported to the > 0.96 > > > branch? > > > > > > > Does the patch fix the issue? What the 'issue' is, is not described and > > the patch is introduced with 'What about this patch ?' and nothing else. > > St.Ack > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
