Yes, that's correct. It looks like we only need to exercise the two builds option if we find a need later on.
Adam On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > Sure, that's still an option, but I don't think this particular > incompatibility makes it necessary, does it? > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Adam Fuchs <[email protected]> wrote: > > We still have the option of putting out a separate build for 1.5.0 > > compatibility with hadoop 2. Should we vote on that release separately? > > Seems like it should be easy to add more binary packages that correspond > to > > the same source release, even after the initial vote. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Keith Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Eric Newton <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Ugh. While running the continuous ingest verify, yarn spit this out: > >> > > >> > Error: Found interface org.apache.hadoop.mapreduce.Counter, but class > was > >> > expected > >> > > >> > This is preventing the reduce step from completing. > >> > > >> > >> Could fix it in 1.5.1 > >> > >> I am starting to think that hadoop compat was so important, it should > have > >> been mostly completed before the feature freeze. > >> > >> > >> > > >> > -Eric > >> > > >> >
