I agree. The provided stuff was done mainly to drive our packaging in
1.5, not to cater to maven developers. There are a few open tickets
about this for 1.6.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Josh Elser wrote:
> I'm curious to hear what peo
I don't think we should do that. Artifacts shouldn't be deployed
multiple times with different POMs for different dependencies. (I'm
100% positive we'd get a scolding from Benson for that.)
The point of MAC is to test Accumulo, not Hadoop, and the additional
classifiers adds a lot of complexity to
being-lazy: do we have one that encompasses this issue already? Is
there a good parent for me to piggy-back on to?
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Christopher wrote:
> I agree. The provided stuff was done mainly to drive our packaging in
> 1.5, not to cater to maven developers. There are a few o
MiniAccumuloCluster has the option of starting HDFS, since LocalFS doesn't
support flush and all the WAL tests fail on it.
-Eric
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Thanks for the insight -- I think I may have caused some confused.
> Previously, I was only referrin
Steve,
Thanks for the insight -- I think I may have caused some confused.
Previously, I was only referring to the Accumulo minicluster module.
We have some profiles in Accumulo for hadoop1 and hadoop2 which
attempt to insulate us from upstream dependency "fun". In the released
versions of the Accu
Hadoop 2 actually has a specific mini cluster component/pom, which is what
you get to depend on there. It's dependencies aer still going to be a mess
until someone sits down to fix HADOOP-9991; but at least now you can be
slightly more selective
On 24 September 2013 18:20, Josh Elser wrote:
> O
Oh, I see your point now. For hadoop 1 over hadoop 2 we would just use
the same profiles that we have in place. We could look into using a
classifier when deploying these artifacts so users can pull down a
version of minicluster that is compatible with hadoop2 without forcing
them to build it thems
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Josh Elser
> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm curious to hear what people think on this.
> >>
> >> I'm a really big fan of spinning up a minicluster instance to d
+1
I remember kind of having this discussion in June because I wanted to be
able to run the minicluster as a single node accumulo using the start
package.
I like this approach better. 1.6.0 provides a main method for firing up the
minicluster and having the dependencies in the pom will allow deve
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Josh Elser wrote:
>
>> I'm curious to hear what people think on this.
>>
>> I'm a really big fan of spinning up a minicluster instance to do some
>> "more real" testing of software as I write it.
>>
>> With
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Josh Elser wrote:
> I'm curious to hear what people think on this.
>
> I'm a really big fan of spinning up a minicluster instance to do some
> "more real" testing of software as I write it.
>
> With 1.5.0, it's a bit more painful because I have to add a bunch mor
I'm curious to hear what people think on this.
I'm a really big fan of spinning up a minicluster instance to do some
"more real" testing of software as I write it.
With 1.5.0, it's a bit more painful because I have to add a bunch more
dependencies to my project (which previously would only have t
12 matches
Mail list logo
