On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <szets...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Colin, > > We usually conclude the last VOTE before starting a new one. Otherwise, > people may be confused between the VOTEs. (In case you don't know our > convention. Please check with someone before starting a VOTE. Thanks.) > > > -1 > * The previous VOTE started by Colin has not been concluded. > I can't tell if you're being serious about this... April fools was a few days ago. This is ridiculous - the previous vote was called 2/17 and explicitly said it was ending on 2/24. Do you think anyone's confused about which vote is active a month and a half later? > > * The branch is not ready. The code misuses DataTransferProtocol. > Documentation of the new conf properties are missing. Also, the code in > the branch needs to be polished. See HDFS-347 and HDFS-4661 for more > details. > During the last vote thread, both you and Suresh said you'd actively review the changes Colin made in response to your review feedback. Then, after Colin posted a patch to address your complaints, it sat unreviewed for a month before I reviewed and committed it. Now, Colin calls another vote, and you find more nit picks in the branch, which again are not new code and have been there for months. I don't see how you can possibly think this is a reasonable way of going about your duties as a reviewer of the branch, nor why you are voting -1 due to a few small nits in the codebase. Actions like these limit the growth of our contributor base and discourage others from joining our development community -- I for one am quite impressed with Colin's patience throughout this ridiculous ordeal, but many others wouldn't have the same fortitude. If you find issues with the branch, put up a patch and let's get on with it. This back-and-forthing is wasting all of our time. Todd > > ________________________________ > From: Colin McCabe <cmcc...@alumni.cmu.edu> > To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org > Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 7:32 AM > Subject: VOTE: HDFS-347 merge > > Hi all, > > I think it's time to merge the HDFS-347 branch back to trunk. It's been > under > review and testing for several months, and provides both a performance > advantage, and the ability to use short-circuit local reads without > compromising system security. > > Previously, we tried to merge this and the objection was brought up that we > should keep the old, insecure short-circuit local reads around so that > platforms for which secure SCR had not yet been implemented could use it > (e.g. Windows). This has been addressed-- see HDFS-4538 for details. > Suresh has also volunteered to maintain the insecure SCR code until secure > SCR can be implemented for Windows. > > Please cast your vote by EOD Monday 4/8. > > best, > Colin > -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
