On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <[email protected]> wrote: > Owen, Doug, Tom > > Could you please formulate and reply to this email separately > what would be an *ACCEPTABLE *resolution of > HADOOP-6685 for *YOU *to move *0.22* forward. > Just trying to get something to work with to get us beyond the stagnation > point. > > It could be "I want this patch in/out as is, final answer". Then we are > stuck. > But at least we will know there is no resolution to hope for anymore. > And we have to find other ways based on that fact. > > It could be a zero-option plan - remove dependencies both for Avro and > ProtocolBuffers out into libraries, similar to schedulers. > Or something else. > Let's see if there is any common ground. If there is > we can further talk about implementation and in the mean time declare > the 0.22 freeze contingent on the completion of H-6685.
I don't personally see HADOOP-6685 as a blocker for a 0.22 release, since there is a lot of value in there already that has not been released yet, such as security. However, to get HADOOP-6685 resolved, from my point of view the main thing to sort out are the modularity concerns that I and others have raised, so that serializations are pluggable and don't add potentially incompatible libraries onto the user's classpath. Thanks, Tom > > Thanks, > --Konstantin > > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Ian Holsman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Dec 17, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote: >> >> >> Everyone who has discussed this patch has said it isn't critical to >> hadoop, and It's holding up everything else 0.22 is going to bring. >> > >> > I disagree that it isn't critical to Hadoop, but I'm not holding up 0.22. >> I'm just not volunteering to spend my time working on it, if it doesn't have >> the features that I think it needs. >> > >> > -- Owen >> > >> >> That's a fair point.. and this is a volunteer effort. >> Do we have anybody else who is willing to be the release manager for 22 >> with 6685? >> >> >
