On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Suresh Srinivas <sur...@hortonworks.com> wrote: >> >> >> 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? >> > > We have already discussed this. > > Here is the recap: > HDFS-347 does not support all the platforms. HDFS-2246 does. > So removing HDFS-2246 does not make sense unless HDFS-347 > supports all the platforms. > > I am not arguing we should retain HDFS-2246 forever. I do not currently > have bandwidth to add HDFS-347 windows equivalent functionality. > When I or someone else adds support for that we can discuss removing > HDFS-2246. Until then I can support HDFS-2246 mechanism. I have > also proposed how to make the current patch simpler where both the > features can live together. > > I will change my vote to +1 in following two cases. > 1. HDFS-347 supports all the other platforms HDFS-2246 supported and > hence truly becomes replacement.
I assume you mean in trunk? Given that ATM's proposal is to only remove HDFS-2246 from branch-2 once (a) we're confident in HDFS-347 and (b) adds Windows support, and we won't be releasing from trunk any time soon - from a user perspective - HDFS-2246 will only be replaced with HDFS-347 until it supports Windows. Ie ATM's compromise appears to satisfy your requirement.
