As one of the main drivers behind it, I'm majorly +1. I think we can get durability out of HDFS-200 (and a few other patches) and stay on a fully released, tested, and (most importantly) trusted Hadoop release. Distributed filesystems are hard, and there is a reason there are very few actually in real production use out there. Staying on a known good release is the way to go for now I think.
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Jonathan Gray <jg...@facebook.com> wrote: > +1 from me and from FB. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Cosmin Lehene [mailto:cleh...@adobe.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 1:14 PM >> To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org; apurt...@apache.org >> Subject: Re: [MORE DISCUSSION] Moving hbase trunk (temporarily) back to >> hadoop 0.20.x (from head of the hadoop 0.21 branch) >> >> +1 >> >> It's the best option in order to be able to release hbase-0.21. >> >> We're already running on hdfs-0.21 and mapreduce-0.21 so if there won't >> be any real blocking issues we're going to stick with 0.21. >> >> HBASE-2233 is appealing so we're for it unless it would take too much >> work, which doesn't seem to be the case. >> >> Cosmin >> >> On Mar 18, 2010, at 8:57 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: >> >> > +1 >> > >> > Thanks, this means I can get off of branch for dev and move back to >> trunk. >> > >> > - Andy >> > >> >> From: Stack <st...@duboce.net> >> >> Subject: [MORE DISCUSSION] Moving hbase trunk (temporarily) back to >> hadoop 0.20.x (from head of the hadoop 0.21 branch) >> >> To: "HBase Dev List" <hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org> >> >> Date: Thursday, March 18, 2010, 11:28 AM >> >> >> >> Unless there is objection, in the next day or so, I'd like >> >> to revert the hadoop that is in hbase trunk and replace it >> >> with hadoop 0.20.2. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >
