On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Aaron T. Myers <a...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Given that the only substantive concerns with HDFS-347 seem to be about > Windows support for local reads, for now we only merge this branch to trunk. Another substantive concern is that HDFS-347 is not as well tested as HDFS-2246. So, we should keep HDFS-2246 around for sometime and remove it later. Is this the usual practice? HDFS-347 and HDFS-2246 are not mutually exclusive. I don't understand why we must remove HDFS-2246 immediately but not allow them to coexist. Tsz-Wo
