That's true, that might be enough.
> On Jul 11, 2016, at 8:46 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > > Don't we already shade it as a part of our shaded client artifact? > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Andrew Purtell > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Even if they do - especially if they do - we should consider doing the same >> for our downstreamers. >> >> >>> On Jul 11, 2016, at 8:12 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I would think so yes >>> >>>> On Jul 11, 2016, at 7:31 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> If Hadoop shades their protobuf that should keep any altering they do from >>>> impacting us, right? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sean Busbey >>>>> On Jul 9, 2016 3:02 PM, "Andrew Purtell" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> PB3 sounds like a plan for 2.0 but what about all shipping versions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The plan in HBASE-15638 is to shade our protobuf so we are independent of >>>>>> anyone else's protobuf and so we can move on to one of our choosing or >>>>> even >>>>>> check in our own protobuf if we have to (protobuf is lacking in support >>>>> for >>>>>> offheap). Anoop and Ram are thinking we should go to pb3. I'll let them >>>>>> talk of the testing they have done so far. >>>>>> >>>>>> St.Ack >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> We should look at HBASE-15638 again in light of HADOOP-13363. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Andy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet >>>>> Hein >>>>>>> (via Tom White) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> - Andy >>>>> >>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein >>>>> (via Tom White) >>>>>
