Given people have had several days to vote, and there have been no -1s, this should be good to go in, right? We have two HDFS committer +1s (Stack and Nicholas) and nonbinding +1s from several others.
Thanks -Todd On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze <s29752-hadoop...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > This is a friendly reminder for voting on committing HDFD-927 to 0.20 and > 0.21. > > Comiitters, please vote! > > Nicholas > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Stack <st...@duboce.net> > > To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org > > Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 10:22:50 PM > > Subject: [VOTE] Commit HDFS-927 to both 0.20 and 0.21 branch? > > > > I'd like to open a vote on committing HDFS-927 to both hadoop branch > > 0.20 and to 0.21. > > > > HDFS-927 "DFSInputStream retries too many times for new block > > location" has an odd summary but in short, its a better HDFS-127 > > "DFSClient block read failures cause open DFSInputStream to become > > unusable". HDFS-127 is an old, popular issue that refuses to die. We > > voted on having it committed to the 0.20 branch not too long ago, see > > http://www.mail-archive.com/hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org/msg00401.html, > > only it broke TestFsck (See http://su.pr/1nylUn) so it was reverted. > > > > High-level, HDFS-127/HDFS-927 is about fixing DFSClient so it a good > > read cleans out the failures count (Previous failures 'stuck' though > > there may have been hours of successful reads in betwixt). When > > rolling hadoop 0.20.2 was proposed, a few fellas including myself > > raised a lack of HDFS-127 as an obstacle. > > > > HDFS-927 has been committed to TRUNK. > > > > I'm +1 on committing to 0.20 and to 0.21 branches. > > > > Thanks for taking the time to take a look into this issue. > > St.Ack > >
