Sorry for rattling you guys, definitely wasn't discussing a veto. I'm absolutely not opposed, just thought the alternative Todd raised was worth a couple emails since users have requested both security and append, and such a branch that includes both of those plus enhancements and substantial testing exists.
Arun - I appreciate all the info, looking forward to the release. Thanks, Eli On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Arun C Murthy <[email protected]> wrote: > *nod* Ok. > > Arun > > On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:08 PM, "Nigel Daley" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I say just do it. Eli said it wasn't a blocker. Sure it ain't perfect, but >> it's good enough. >> >> Let's move on to 0.22 and beyond. >> >> Nige >> >> On Jan 13, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jan 13, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Eli Collins wrote: >>> >>>> The cdh3 patch set Todd is talking about is not vanilla 104.3, it's >>>> 104.3 re-based onto 20.2 plus patches from branch-20 and trunk (the >>>> performance and stability fixes I think you're referring to, at least >>>> the ones that have been posted to Apache jira). >>>> >>>> Can you post a pointer to the version you're referring to, eg on >>>> github? If there isn't a big delta between it and the cdh3 patch set >>>> (which should have the 20-based patches from jira) perhaps you and >>>> Todd could easily merge in the delta to create 0.20.x? >>>> >>> >>> I can guarantee it will need work to merge the enhancements since 20.104.3, >>> it's over 6 months of development. The enhancements includes work on >>> stability such as iterative ls, limits on JT to prevent single jobs/users >>> from taking it down etc. and lots of bug-fixes to security. So, >>> unfortunately the delta is pretty large. >>> >>> I'm working on a CHANGES.txt which should reflect all the changes i.e. >>> bug-fixes and enhancements. >>> >>>>> The version I'm offering to push to the community has fixed all of them, >>>>> *plus* the added benefit of several stability and performance fixes we >>>>> have >>>>> done since 20.104.3, almost 10 internal releases. This is a battle tested >>>>> and hardened version which we have deployed on 40,000+ nodes. It is a >>>>> significant upgrade on 0.20.104.3 which we never deployed. I'm pretty sure >>>>> *some* users will find that valuable. ;) >>>> >>>> Definitely, but better to hit two birds with one stone right? Instead >>>> of a security + enhancements release and an append release we could >>>> have a single security + append + enhancements release and users don't >>>> have to choose. >>>> >>> >>> >>> We are discussing two options: >>> 20 + security + enhancements >>> 20 + security + append >>> >>> I think the value we provide via 20+security+enhancements release is that >>> it's stable, tested and deployed at scale. Doing any more work merging 6 >>> months of work at Yahoo (again, I guarantee it's a lot of work) will need a >>> lots of cycles to validate, test and stabilize. >>> >>> I feel the alternative is a distraction for me, I'd rather work on 0.22. >>> >>> I can get 20+security+enhancements done very, very, quickly precisely >>> because I don't have to spend cycles testing it. >>> >>> Does that make sense? Thanks for being patient and bearing with me... >>> >>> Arun >>> >> >
