Sean, Should I revert that patch?
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:48 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 > > > > >
