On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Chris Douglas <cdoug...@apache.org> wrote: > 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.
I'm not proposing anything new, Nicholas said he had some concerns with ATM's proposal and we're discussing them. Specifically, ATM's proposal does not allow for a single release that contains both 347 and 2246 (he proposes removing 2246 from branch-2 when 347 is ready). I think Nicholas was saying that we should not remove 2246 immediately for the sake of a transition period (which I interpret to mean a release that supports both), I responded saying that the transition that we'd have in ATM's proposal (people adjust on trunk and there's some branch-2 release that flips over) is sufficient given that 2246 was intended as a short term thing. Curious if Nicholas and others think that's reasonable. Thanks, Eli > > 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
