Commented on JIRA, I'm hoping I can take a look more closely at these tonight.
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:48 AM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > Can anyone who worked on this code comment? > They do seem minor. > 428 would also be solved by moving to the standard Job superclass. > > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Peter M. Goldstein > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I submitted a few JIRA issues a couple of weeks ago and I was hoping to get >> a committer to comment on and/or apply the submitted patches. Specifically, >> the issues were: >> >> >> >> i) MAHOUT-428 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-428> - This should be a >> pretty safe patch, considering it is patterned on another, already resolved, >> bug. >> >> ii) MAHOUT-426 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-426> - This patch basically >> adds some safety nets to the Mahout command script, ensuring that it doesn't >> run the hadoop branch unless there's a Job file available. >> >> iii) MAHOUT-427 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-427> - This issue is a >> question about the "-core" argument to the Mahout command script. I >> couldn't find this documented on the wiki, and was hoping someone could shed >> some light. Any clarification would be appreciated. >> >> >> >> I'd especially like to get 428 into trunk, so I don't have to maintain a >> patched version on my EC2 image. >> >> >> >> Any comments would be appreciated. >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> --Peter >> >> >
