[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-4489?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13642996#comment-13642996
]
Suresh Srinivas edited comment on HDFS-4489 at 4/26/13 4:36 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
bq. Here you act like its your own branch where you commit what you want and
nobody else cares.
I fail to understand the need for such hostile tone. That said, please look at
many small features, improvements and numerous bug fixes that are committed by
me and other committers into many of the 2.0.x releases, without any discussion
or need for vote, entirely based on their judgement.
To be clear, a committer can commit to any branch. It is up to the release
manager to include it or not in a release.
Instead of stating your objection to a change as it is big, 150K lines of code
etc., it would be great if you can really look at the patch and express more
concrete technical concerns related to stability.
I have reverted HDFS-4434. I have also responded on the thread related to 2.0.5
on including the features that many have been working for many months.
It seems to me that suddenly in past week or so you have decided that stability
is the only paramount thing, disregarding all the discussions that have
happened. Please see my earlier comment on discussion related to API and wire
protocol stability that we had months ago.
was (Author: sureshms):
bq. Here you act like its your own branch where you commit what you want
and nobody else cares.
I fail to understand the need for such hostile tone. That said, please look at
many small features, improvements and numerous bug fixes that are committed by
me and other committers. Also instead of stating your objection to a change as
it is big, 150K lines of code etc., it would be great if you can really look at
the patch and express more concrete technical concerns related to stability.
I have reverted HDFS-4434. I have also responded on the thread related to 2.0.5
on including the features that many have been working for many months.
It seems to me that suddenly in past week or so you have decided that stability
is the only paramount thing, disregarding all the discussions that have
happened. Please see my earlier comment on discussion related to API and wire
protocol stability that we sent months ago.
> Use InodeID as as an identifier of a file in HDFS protocols and APIs
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-4489
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-4489
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: namenode
> Reporter: Brandon Li
> Assignee: Brandon Li
> Fix For: 2.0.5-beta
>
>
> The benefit of using InodeID to uniquely identify a file can be multiple
> folds. Here are a few of them:
> 1. uniquely identify a file cross rename, related JIRAs include HDFS-4258,
> HDFS-4437.
> 2. modification checks in tools like distcp. Since a file could have been
> replaced or renamed to, the file name and size combination is no t reliable,
> but the combination of file id and size is unique.
> 3. id based protocol support (e.g., NFS)
> 4. to make the pluggable block placement policy use fileid instead of
> filename (HDFS-385).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
