Sean Busbey wrote:
On Feb 16, 2015 2:17 PM, "Christopher" wrote:
In favor of stability, I think we should re-add anything that was removed
prematurely, where it makes sense to do so. Some things, like the
mapreduce.lib.util classes I believe were removed due to the fact that it
inadvertently fe
Sean Busbey wrote:
On Feb 16, 2015 10:40 AM, "Josh Elser" wrote:
I'm failing to actually parse this WRT what we're allowed to do, but
would naturally lean towards keeping 1.7.0. I don't think anything else has
changed which would make us not want to tie 2.0 to a new client API.
Since 1.6.z ->
On Feb 16, 2015 2:17 PM, "Christopher" wrote:
>
> In favor of stability, I think we should re-add anything that was removed
> prematurely, where it makes sense to do so. Some things, like the
> mapreduce.lib.util classes I believe were removed due to the fact that it
> inadvertently fell into the
On Feb 16, 2015 12:51 PM, "Adam Fuchs" wrote:
>
> I don't think bumping up to 2.0 lets us break compatibility anyway
(without
> a deprecation cycle), so I think option B is the only option if we're
going
> to release another version.
>
> Adam
>
>
I didn't check yet to see if the breaking changes
On Feb 16, 2015 10:40 AM, "Josh Elser" wrote:
>
> I'm failing to actually parse this WRT what we're allowed to do, but
would naturally lean towards keeping 1.7.0. I don't think anything else has
changed which would make us not want to tie 2.0 to a new client API.
>
Since 1.6.z -> 1.7.0 is a minor
In favor of stability, I think we should re-add anything that was removed
prematurely, where it makes sense to do so. Some things, like the
mapreduce.lib.util classes I believe were removed due to the fact that it
inadvertently fell into the definition of public API when it never should
have been,
I don't think bumping up to 2.0 lets us break compatibility anyway (without
a deprecation cycle), so I think option B is the only option if we're going
to release another version.
Adam
On Feb 16, 2015 4:00 AM, "Sean Busbey" wrote:
> Hi folks.
>
> I just ran an updated compatibility check betwe
I'm failing to actually parse this WRT what we're allowed to do, but
would naturally lean towards keeping 1.7.0. I don't think anything else
has changed which would make us not want to tie 2.0 to a new client API.
Sean Busbey wrote:
Hi folks.
I just ran an updated compatibility check between
Hi folks.
I just ran an updated compatibility check between the newly approved 1.6.2
and master:
http://people.apache.org/~busbey/compat_reports/accumulo/1.6.2_to_1.7.0-SNAPSHOT/compat_report.html
A number of incompatibilities are present. Would folks prefer to increment
to 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT or doe
