Yes, We can remove from trunk and can be deprecated in branch-2. We confirmed with all the existing customers on this..
--Brahma Reddy Battula -----Original Message----- From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:uma.ganguma...@intel.com] Sent: 28 July 2016 13:22 To: Rakesh Radhakrishnan; Sijie Guo Cc: d...@bookkeeper.apache.org; Uma gangumalla; Vinayakumar B; hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org; u...@hadoop.apache.org; u...@bookkeeper.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk? For Huawei, Vinay/Brahma should know about their usage. I think after QJM stabilized and ready they also adopted to QJM is what I know, but they should know more than me as I left that employer while ago. If no one is using it, It is ok to remove. Regards, Uma On 7/27/16, 9:49 PM, "Rakesh Radhakrishnan" <rake...@apache.org> wrote: >If I remember correctly, Huawei also adopted QJM component. I hope >@Vinay might have discussed internally in Huawei before starting this >e-mail discussion thread. I'm +1, for removing the bkjm contrib from >the trunk code. > >Also, there are quite few open sub-tasks under HDFS-3399 umbrella jira, >which was used for the BKJM implementation time. How about closing >these jira by marking as "Won't Fix"? > >Thanks, >Rakesh >Intel > >On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> wrote: > >> + Rakesh and Uma >> >> Rakesh and Uma might have a better idea on this. I think Huawei was >>using it when Rakesh and Uma worked there. >> >> - Sijie >> >> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Chris Nauroth >><cnaur...@hortonworks.com> >> wrote: >> >> > I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion. >>I¹ve >> > added their user@ and dev@ lists to this thread. >> > >> > I do not see BKJM being used in practice. Removing it from trunk >>would >> be >> > attractive in terms of less code for Hadoop to maintain and build, >>but if >> > we find existing users that want to keep it, I wouldn¹t object. >> > >> > --Chris Nauroth >> > >> > On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <vinayakumar...@huawei.com> >>wrote: >> > >> > Hi All, >> > >> > BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA >> > was implemented and there was no QJM implemented. >> > Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by >> > many production environment. >> > I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from >> trunk? >> > >> > Are there any users of BKJM exists? >> > >> > -Vinay >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org
