Agreed. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:01 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote:
> Ah, I'm seeing now -- didn't check my inbox appropriately. > > I think the fact that code that we don't own has somehow been allowed to > be public API is the smell. That's something that needs to be rectified > sooner than later. By that measure, it can *only* land on Accumulo 2.0 > (which is going to be a major issue for the project). > > On 12/4/17 5:58 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > > Sorry, I don't follow. Why do you think 4611/4753 is a show-stopper? > > Cuz, uh... I made it work already :) > > > > Thanks for the JIRA cleanup. Forgot about that one. > > > > On 12/4/17 5:55 PM, Christopher wrote: > >> I don't think we can support it with 1.8 or earlier, because of some > >> serious incompatibilities (namely, ACCUMULO-4611/4753) > >> I think people are still patching 1.7, so I don't think we've > >> "officially" > >> EOL'd it. > >> I think 2.0 could require Hadoop 3, if Hadoop 3 is sufficiently stable. > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:14 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> What branch do we want to consider Hadoop3 support? > >>> > >>> There is a 3.0.0-beta1 release that's been out for a while, and Hadoop > >>> PMC has already done a 3.0.0 RC0. I think it's the right time to start > >>> considering this. > >>> > >>> In my poking so far, I've filed ACCUMULO-4753 which I'm working through > >>> now. This does raise the question: where do we want to say we support > >>> Hadoop3? 1.8 or 2.0? (have we "officially" deprecated 1.7?) > >>> > >>> - Josh > >>> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4753 > >>> > >> >
