Hey, this is an English text. I want you to translate it into the Tunisian dialect. Please follow these steps:
1. Translate step by step and highlight differences between Tunisian dialect and Modern Standard Arabic.
2. Highlight sections you are confident translating into the Tunisian dialect.
Translate this text into the Tunisian dialect, focusing on capturing the essence of the language nuances:

I think we have to deal with protocol type and check the directory consistencies based on that. Currently, confirmation check will check only namespace dirs. To check the shared edits, we can not use this logic. We have to do it depending on the shared journal type. for: bk jouranal..etc Also currently initialization of shareEditsDirs option also assumes that as file protocol. If we configure any other type it may not work. Uma Maheswara Rao G added a comment - 17/Apr/12 15:56 I think we have to deal with protocol type and check the directory consistencies based on that. Currently, confirmation check will check only namespace dirs. To check the shared edits, we can not use this logic. We have to do it depending on the shared journal type. for: bk jouranal..etc Also currently initialization of shareEditsDirs option also assumes that as file protocol. If we configure any other type it may not work. Currently I have created a patch which work with shared dir configured with file protocol. If any bookeeper related directory is configured then my patch will not fail the format. for(Iterator<URI> it = dirsToFormat.iterator(); it.hasNext();) { File curDir = new File(it.next().getPath()); // Its alright for a dir not to exist, or to exist (properly accessible) // and be completely empty. if (!curDir.exists() || (curDir.isDirectory() && FileUtil.listFiles(curDir).length == 0)) continue; curDir.exist() (which will check locally and return false) and user is not prompted for formatting this shared dir. I have another doubt If I format the HDFS cluster which used Bookeeper for shared storage, then ./hdfs namenode -format will not format the shared dir(bookeeper dir). Then how cluster works with older version details? amith added a comment - 17/Apr/12 16:23 I agree with uma. Currently I have created a patch which work with shared dir configured with file protocol. If any bookeeper related directory is configured then my patch will not fail the format. for (Iterator<URI> it = dirsToFormat.iterator(); it.hasNext();) { File curDir = new File(it.next().getPath()); // Its alright for a dir not to exist, or to exist (properly accessible) // and be completely empty. if (!curDir.exists() || (curDir.isDirectory() && FileUtil.listFiles(curDir).length == 0)) continue ; curDir.exist() (which will check locally and return false) and user is not prompted for formatting this shared dir. I have another doubt If I format the HDFS cluster which used Bookeeper for shared storage, then ./hdfs namenode -format will not format the shared dir(bookeeper dir). Then how cluster works with older version details? I think that for this JIRA we should punt on the other types of shared dirs besides file-based. I think we should make format look at the journal type and print something like "not formatting non-file journal manager..." How does that sound? At a later point in a different JIRA we can work on a more general initialization system which is totally agnostic to the type of journal manager. Aaron T. Myers added a comment - 17/Apr/12 18:14 I think that for this JIRA we should punt on the