+1. I prefer to know exactly what I do rather then depending on the default version that will vary from a system to another. And we may depend on multiple version of protoc in the future (one for 0.96, on for 0.98; one for 0.99 and so on).
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote: > I tend to agree with this -- there is no guarantee that future > versions of this will not break compatiblity, (thrift did this > multiple times), yeah, modifying protobuf stuff is rare. > > I'd be happy if we detected if protoc was present, use it if it was > but also allow the build if it isn't by using the committed generated > code. > > Jon. > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > My thinking was that its rare someone is messing w/ protobufs so why > burden > > all builders w/ having to install protoc? > > St.Ack > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> I think the idea was to make it easier for the average developer to get > >> hbase building without the hassle. The only downside is that we have to > >> commit the generated code. > >> > >> I've opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7557 as a > >> critical. > >> > >> Enis > >> > >> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected] > >> >wrote: > >> > >> > 012 for lacking it here and there but that would not be the typical > >> > experience. I was also bitten by needing a recent en > >> > > >> > > > > -- > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > // Software Engineer, Cloudera > // [email protected] >
