Agreed. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > That would have also been my assumption since it was not otherwise stated. > However, given the nature of this vote, I believe non-binding votes should > also be carefully considered. > > > On 6/6/13 10:22 AM, Billie Rinaldi wrote: >> >> I would assume all our votes are "community welcome to vote, only >> committers binding." >> >> Billie >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:52 AM, David Medinets >> <david.medin...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Who is voting - the accumulo community, the PMC members, or some other >>> subset of people? >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:51 PM, David Lyle <dlyle65...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> -1 Prefer to stay on java 1.6 until pulled by features or eol. >>>> >>>> -D... >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:53 PM, German Gutierrez >>>> <gutierrezg...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello Everyone, >>>>> >>>>> I vote for in favor. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> German A. Gutierrez >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> >>> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> All- >>>>>> >>>>>> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java >>>>>> dependency to >=1.7. >>>>>> >>>>>> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the >>>>>> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the >>>>>> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a >>>>>> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free >>> >>> to >>>>>> >>>>>> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of >>>>>> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant >>>>>> to come to a concrete opinion. >>>>>> >>>>>> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal >>> >>> to >>>>>> >>>>>> me. I just want a concrete resolution. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II >>>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> >>> >>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos >>>>>> >>>>>> authentication >>>>>>> >>>>>>> behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on >>>> >>>> the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Accumulo implementation as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <b...@sqrrl.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Sean >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
