> On another thread discussing hadoop-0.20-append as a separate branch, most > people agreed that new features shouldn't be added to 0.20, now we have a > major feature and we are all gung ho for it..
Not all are. I'm against it for the all the same reasons I was against 20 append. This is also being used as a wedge to get the append work in as .200. My position is that every iota effort of releasing another 20 branch is an iota not spent on getting us a kick-ass 22. 20 was great, and we had a lot of wonderful times together, but it's time to move on and see other releases. But, this is a volunteer effort, and if others want to put the effort in, they're free to do so. -jg On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Nigel Daley <[email protected]> wrote: > Yup, I'll say it again. The process ain't perfect but it's good enough IMO. > Thank you Yahoo! for your contribution. > > Clearly these patch will need review before commit when going into trunk. > > Let's move on to 0.22. > > Nige > > On Jan 14, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > >> I tend to second most of Ian's points here. >> >> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 06:14, Ian Holsman <[email protected]> wrote: >>> (with my Apache hat on) >>> I'm -0.5 on doing this as one big mega-patch and not including append (as >>> opposed to a series of smaller patches). >> >> #1: we are creating a precedent of a "brain-dump" here. Although, it >> isn't the first one in the history of OSS. Infamous Apple "patch" to >> OpenBSD is another one ;) >> >> #2: How to spell 'back door' any one? >> >> #5: "almost 10 internal releases" Arun has mentioned above might be, >> perhaps, considered as a great quality control effort. Also, not to >> mention virtual impossibility to create a test plan to validate a >> giant features patch. >> >>> BTW, I'd like to point out a discrepancy here: >>> >>> On another thread discussing hadoop-0.20-append as a separate branch, most >>> people agreed that new features shouldn't be added to 0.20, now we have a >>> major feature and we are all gung ho for it.. >> >> And this ^^^ >> >> But, hey I guess it's totally worth it! >> Cos >> >>> --Ian >>> >>> On Jan 14, 2011, at 2:21 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Stack wrote: >>>> >>>>> (Man, it was looking good there for a second when 0.20.100 was about >>>>> security+append!) >>>>> >>>>> Good luck w/ the release Arun. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>>> We might be following your 0.20.100 with a 0.20.200 append. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Super! >>>> >>>> Arun >>> >>> > >
