I like this. With no durability goal, we should be able to hit this in short order. HDFS is not ready for the claim as of yet.
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > I went through the list issues that we had filed against a 0.20.4. I > moved out the issues that depend on hdfs-200, post rpc-version change, > etc. Outstanding are ~15 issues: http://su.pr/1TLvb7 A good few are > patch available. A couple of others are small doc issues. I'll take > care of the easy ones this evening. Please go over the list > yourselves to see what else we should include. As is, the list > includes hbase-2248. I think we should try and get this one in if > only to make the release a little interesting (and to fix the > deadlock). We also need to fix the json jar issue so we have chance > of being debian package. > > St.Ack > P.S. I haven't voted yet. At the moment I'm +0. If hbase-2248 goes > in, I'd go +1. > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Implied is we move people to 0.20.5 rather than do a patch on 0.20.4, beyond >> the RC period. >> >> Hence it's even more important that J-D cherry pick bugfixes out of >> 0.20.4-dev for an 0.20.4 RC and release. >> >> Is that acceptable? >> >> - Andy >> >> >>> From: Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> >>> Subject: Re: Vote on 0.20.3.1 >>> To: "hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org> >>> Date: Wednesday, April 7, 2010, 3:35 PM >>> > From: Jonathan Gray >>> > >>> > The issue would be that we break out 0.20.4 to make an >>> RC. >>> > Now we have to patch 3 separate trees for each bug fix >>> (0.20.4, >>> > 0.20.5, and 0.21). >>> >>> Ok, I grant you that. But only during the RC. >>> >>> - Andy >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >
