Well this will generate tens of more jiras, which wont justify closing the few remaining. You have been there, it took months to get that thing settled so it was usable. I am just saying its a risk we can get the same this time. --Konstantin
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Nigel Daley <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 14, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: > > > We actually still haven't recovered from the projects split. > > We are still fixing HDFS and MR scripts with several jiras open. > > Great, so let's do this reorg before we fix those jira's so we don't need > to fix them again. Can you provide the issue numbers you're think of? > > Thx, > Nige > > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Nigel Daley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Folks, > >> > >> As I look more at the impact of the common/MR/HDFS project split on what > >> and how we release Hadoop, I feel like the split needs an adjustment. > Many > >> folks I've talked to agree that the project split has caused us a > splitting > >> headache. I think 1 relatively small change could alleviate some of > that. > >> > >> CURRENT SVN REPO: > >> > >> hadoop / [common, mapreduce, hdfs] / trunk > >> hadoop / [common, mapreduce, hdfs] / branches > >> > >> PROPOSAL: > >> > >> hadoop / trunk / [common, mapreduce, hdfs] > >> hadoop / branches / [common, mapreduce, hdfs] > >> > >> We're a long way from releasing these 3 projects independently. Given > >> that, they should be branched and released as a unit. This SVN > structure > >> enforces that and provides a more natural place to keep a top level > build > >> and pkg scripts that operate across all 3 projects. > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Nige > >> > >
