> Companies wanting a 1.0 product could always pay Cloudera and get a
v2 product.
lol :) good point Allen, lets please *not* adopt a 1.0 labeling for
Apache Hadoop :)
Seriously though, to avoid my previous comment about 1.0 labeling being
misinterpreted, though I think the 1.0 labeling is i
If I may pitch in briefly here, believe it or not, there is a lot of
enterprises out there whom think that anything that isn't version 1.0
isn't worth considering, let alone deploying (doesn't make sense, but
some people are like that). Hence, from a market adoption point of view,
Apache Hadoop
+1
-- amr
gn.
E.g. there is a lot of hours scheduled to unit test writing using
fault
injection, etc.
Thanks,
--Konstantin
Amr Awadallah wrote:
+1 for stable append.
-- amr
Dhruba Borthakur wrote:
+1
On 7/24/09, J
faster than
we predicted :-).
So, we can either move the freeze a couple of weeks further ahead.
Or we can also use some help from the people familiar with the
design.
E.g. there is a lot of hours scheduled to unit test writing using
fault
injection, etc.
Thanks,
--Konstantin
Amr Awadallah wrot
+1 for stable append.
-- amr
Dhruba Borthakur wrote:
+1
On 7/24/09, Jim Kellerman (POWERSET) wrote:
+1
-Original Message-
From: Owen O'Malley [mailto:omal...@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 1:11 PM
To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Push back code
+1
Zheng Shao wrote:
+1
-Original Message-
From: Arun C Murthy [mailto:a...@yahoo-inc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 1:30 PM
To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Back-port TFile to Hadoop 0.20
On Jul 7, 2009, at 11:55 AM, Hong Tang wrote:
I have talked with a
To add to Todd/Ted's wise words, the Hadoop (and MapReduce) architects
didn't impose this limitation just for fun, it is very core to enabling
Hadoop to be as reliable as it is. If the reducer starts processing
mapper output immediately and a specific mapper fails then the reducer
would have to
