No I wasn't suggesting changing or reverting anything.
On Jul 6, 2010 6:08 PM, "Ted Dunning" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> > >> > >>
