I think it is coincidental in this case, and we actively wouldn't want to peg them.
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Jerry He <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is it an intention to use the same version as hbase 2. Or is it just > coincidental, and we can not really peg them? > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:08 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On 11/28/17 4:54 PM, Stack wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > >> Wanted to get some input on the versioning scheme for our > > hbase-thirdparty > > >> artifacts. > > >> > > >> We are moving all of the relocation from o.a.h.shaded to > > o.a.h.thirdparty > > >> due to conflicts with our non-thirdparty shaded libraries. Currently, > > the > > >> next release is slated to be of the thirdparty libs is slated to be > > 1.0.2, > > >> however the package change seems like a big deal. > > >> > > >> I propose that we go to 1.1.0 or 2.0.0 even with this. Version numbers > > are > > >> cheap, we won't run out, so we can afford to be aggressive with > > >> incrementing them. And we don't have to worry about other users of > this, > > >> since it's all designed to be internal. > > >> > > >> Thoughts? > > >> > > >> > > > 2.0.0 > > > > +1 > > >
