Do we know if thirft 0.9.0 and 0.9.1 are forward compatible?
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > Correction: the current patch does *NOT* bump the wire version... I > thought I did that, but I did not. > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > > Devs, > > > > I'm considering whether or not it'd be appropriate to push in > > ACCUMULO-1691 into the 1.6.1-SNAPSHOT branch. > > This would effectively bump our dependency on libthrift to 0.9.1. > > However, thrift 0.9.1 and 0.9.0 are 100% wire-compatible (I've been > > assured by jfarrell and codesf in the #thrift IRC channel). > > > > Given that this we provide this dependency, and the bump would fix > > some thrift bugs, and that Thrift's own API is backwards-compatible in > > this version, I don't think this would impact our community except in > > the positive. > > > > (Note: currently, my patch for ACCUMULO-1691 bumps up the wire > > version, but I plan on changing that so it doesn't, now that I've been > > assured it is compatible... I've also done some manual tests to verify > > this, and haven't seen any issues across our tests, even without > > re-generating the thrift classes in ACCUMULO-2773; If I roll > > ACCUMULO-1691 in, I'd also include ACCUMULO-2773.) > > > > -- > > Christopher L Tubbs II > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > -- Sean
