On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Eli Collins <e...@cloudera.com> wrote: > I think we need a transition period when any kinks are worked out of > 347 but I don't think we need one alpha/beta release where both > mechanisms are supported (because 2246 was just a short term solution > rather than a long term commitment). Ideally we'd get 347 in branch-2 > for 2.0.4-beta and have that release to address issues that come up to > fix for GA. Cloudera is actively testing 347 and parts of the > community are eager to pick it up so I think that would work out > timing wise. Reasonable?
ATM's suggestion of removing HDFS-2246 in trunk, but not branch-2, is a rational compromise: it allows some period for others to adapt, but not an indefinite one. It's not clear what you're proposing, if anything. Nicholas/Suresh: have you had a chance to review HDFS-347, yet? -C > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <szets...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> I agree that HDFS-2246 is a short term solution and we should not keep it >> there forever. However, we still need a transition period to replace an old >> mechanism by a new one. No? >> >> Tsz-Wo >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Eli Collins <e...@cloudera.com> >> To: "hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org>; Tsz Wo Sze >> <szets...@yahoo.com> >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 10:24 AM >> Subject: Re: VOTE: HDFS-347 merge >> >> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <szets...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> I still do not see a valid reason to remove HDFS-2246 immediately. Some >>> users may have insecure clusters and they don't want to change their >>> configuration. >> >> Because it doesn't make sense to support multiple mechanisms for the >> same thing. >> >> 2246 was always intended to be a *short term solution* util 347 was >> completed, eg see Sanjay's first comment on 2246: "A shortcut has >> been proposed where the client access the hdfs file blocks directly... >> This is non-invasive and is a good short term solution till HDFS-347 >> is completed." >> >> Thanks, >> Eli
