Vote is closed (unless there is objection). I'll commit below in next day or so. Thanks to all who participated. St.Ack
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> wrote: > 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 >> >> >
