On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 5:05 PM Sean Busbey wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 11:20 AM Sean Busbey wrote:
> >> Would we be bumping the Hadoop version while incrementing our minor
> >> version number or our major version number?
> >>
> >>
> >>
Sean Busbey wrote:
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Christopher wrote:
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 11:20 AM Sean Busbey wrote:
Would we be bumping the Hadoop version while incrementing our minor
version number or our major version number?
Minor only, because it's not a breaking change necessari
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Christopher wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 11:20 AM Sean Busbey wrote:
>> Would we be bumping the Hadoop version while incrementing our minor
>> version number or our major version number?
>>
>>
>>
> Minor only, because it's not a breaking change necessarily, and
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 11:20 AM Sean Busbey wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > Ah, my mistake. I thought it was 2.7 and later. Well, then I guess the
> > question is whether we should bump to 2.8, then. I'm not a fan of the
> shim
> > layer. I'd rather provide suppor
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Christopher wrote:
>> Ah, my mistake. I thought it was 2.7 and later. Well, then I guess the
>> question is whether we should bump to 2.8, then. I'm not a fan of the shim
>> layer. I'd rather provide support for
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Christopher wrote:
> Ah, my mistake. I thought it was 2.7 and later. Well, then I guess the
> question is whether we should bump to 2.8, then. I'm not a fan of the shim
> layer. I'd rather provide support for downstream packagers trying to
> backport for HTrace3, if
I'm sure I know some people trying to use Accumulo+HDFS tracing, and it's
going to cause a problem no matter what, because Hadoop and Accumulo aren't
always upgraded at the same time. I just want to make sure it gets better
at some point, if both are sufficiently up-to-date.
Backporting patches to
Ah, that makes more sense. I would be fine with bumping the htrace
dependency to match the most recent version of Hadoop that we support and
not doing a shim layer. We might want to check in with any users who are
using the Accumulo+HDFS tracing to see if this would be a problem for them.
I am not
Ah, my mistake. I thought it was 2.7 and later. Well, then I guess the
question is whether we should bump to 2.8, then. I'm not a fan of the shim
layer. I'd rather provide support for downstream packagers trying to
backport for HTrace3, if anybody ends up requiring that, than provide a
shim to pres
I'm in favor of bumping our Hadoop version to 2.7. We are already on the
same htrace version as Hadoop 2.7. (The discussion in ACCUMULO-4171 is
relevant to Hadoop 2.8 and later.)
Billie
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Christopher wrote:
> Thinking about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACC
Thinking about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4171, I'm of
the opinion that we should probably bump our Hadoop version to 2.7 and
HTrace version to what Hadoop is using, to keep them in sync.
Does anybody disagree?
11 matches
Mail list logo
