Hi Sanjay,
The 7 extra days you requested beyond the original 7-day merge vote have
now elapsed, and we have the requisite three binding +1s to merge.
I'll plan to merge this late tonight unless there are any vetoes in the
meantime.
Of course we can continue to discuss the design and improve the clarity of
the documentation after it's in trunk, and if there's some kind of bug I'll
treat it as highest priority even after the merge.
Thanks
-Todd
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:55 AM, sanjay Radia <san...@hortonworks.com>wrote:
> Todd,
> Even though this work was under development over a period of time,
> during its development it was not clear when the design was fairly stable
> to begin a thorough review. Hence the time of merge is when the real review
> happens in such large projects.
>
> I have already indicated on the jira that i do not have any philosophical
> objection to this work being in HDFS - hence this should not be a worry on
> your part.
>
> The extra week will result in a more through review (hopefully this will
> have a side effect of perhaps easing Konstanine's concern about
> HDFS adding such complex code).
>
> Lets plan to do the merge next monday.
>
> thanks
>
> sanjay
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 28, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
>
> > Hey Sanjay,
> >
> > While I understand it's substantial and complex code, the code and the
> > design doc have been available for several months, and the community
> > has certainly been aware of its development. I also gave a heads up
> > last week that I would call a merge this week. So I feel like there
> > has been sufficient time for interested parties to review.
> >
> > That said, since I was sick for much of this week and not immediately
> > responsive to some of the questions from you and Suresh, I'm happy to
> > agree to postpone the merge to early next week. Let's extend the vote
> > to last until Monday end of day PST.
> >
> > Of course if there are follow-up questions or bugs found after the
> > merge, you've all got my phone number and I'm not going anywhere! ;-)
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Todd
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:06 PM, sanjay Radia <san...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
> >> Suresh and I are still reviewing this design and patch.
> >> The 3077 code along with the code pulled from 3092 is fairly
> substrantial. The design is also fairly complex and involved.
> >> I would request that we postpone the merge for another week to give
> folks time to review this fully.
> >>
> >>
> >> sanjay
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sep 25, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dear fellow HDFS developers,
> >>>
> >>> Per my email thread last week ("Heads up: merge for QJM branch soon"
> >>> at http://markmail.org/message/vkyh5culdsuxdb6t) I would like to
> >>> propose merging the HDFS-3077 branch into trunk. The branch has been
> >>> active since mid July and has stabilized significantly over the last
> >>> two months. It has passed the full test suite, findbugs, and release
> >>> audit, and I think it's ready to merge at this point.
> >>>
> >>> The branch has been fully developed using the standard
> >>> 'review-then-commit' (RTC) policy, and the design is described in
> >>> detail in a document attached to HDFS-3077 itself. The code itself has
> >>> been contributed by me, Aaron, and Eli, but I'd be remiss not to also
> >>> acknowledge the contributions to the design from discussions with
> >>> Suresh, Sanjay, Henry Robinson, Patrick Hunt, Ivan Kelly, Andrew
> >>> Purtell, Flavio Junqueira, Ben Reed, Nicholas, Bikas, Brandon, and
> >>> others. Additionally, special thanks to Andrew Purtell and Stephen Chu
> >>> for their help with cluster testing.
> >>>
> >>> This initial VOTE is to merge only into trunk, but, following the
> >>> pattern of automatic failover, I expect to merge it into branch-2
> >>> within a few weeks as well. The merge to branch-2 should be clean, as
> >>> both I and Andrew Purtell have been testing on branch-2-derived
> >>> codebases in addition to trunk.
> >>>
> >>> Please cast your vote by EOD Friday 9/29. Given that the branch has
> >>> only had small changes in the last few weeks, and there was a "heads
> >>> up" last week, I trust this should be enough time for committers to
> >>> cast their votes. Per our by-laws, we need a minimum of three binding
> >>> +1 votes from committers.
> >>>
> >>> I will start the voting with my own +1.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> -Todd
> >>> --
> >>> Todd Lipcon
> >>> Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Todd Lipcon
> > Software Engineer, Cloudera
>
>
--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera
