On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Suresh Srinivas <sur...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > 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 am not sure why a release that supports both these is such a bad idea. > As Nicholas has stated these mechanisms are not mutually exclusive. > I am -1 on removing HDFS-2246. That should be done in a separate jira > and not as a part of HDFS-347. If the concern is the complexity, I have > already suggested some choices on how to simplify it. If maintaining the > code > is a concern, I have also offered to support and maintain it.
There's no reason to maintain multiple implementations of the same feature, that's why per the 2246 jira it was proposed as a "good short term solution till HDFS-347 is completed". Why is ATM's compromise unacceptable?
