> I think it is better to update both UMASK_LABEL and DEPRECATED_UMASK_LABEL in setUMask(..).
sounds reasonable. Though only one of them is going to be used
> Also when both UMASK_LABEL and DEPRECATED_UMASK_LABEL are set in conf and they have different values, should we throw an exception?
In release 20, the server config will be setup with UMASK_LABEL. The user can override the default by:
- Calling FsPermission.setUMask() (this has been addressed)
- By setting configuration param either by calling conf.set() or by specifying umask in command line (see manual tests posted above).
Given that I think we should allow these two configurations to have separate value. Further, giving higher priority to deprecated key, assuming the user is likely to use it is the right choice. If the user happens to use the new key there is no conflict.