Re: [DISCUSS] including shaded artifacts in the convenience binary

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 7:09 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > Any other feedback here folks? > > Bundling shaded artifacts AND a client-only access tgz would be doing our users a useful service. Aside: Is it going to be hell to rig the build to autogenerate these new artifacts? S > Mike D, you

Re: [DISCUSS] including shaded artifacts in the convenience binary

On 5/31/18 3:57 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Josh Elser wrote: On 5/24/18 11:16 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Mike Drob wrote: Are the two issues (HBASE-20615 and HBASE-19735) conflicting, redundant, or orthogonal? I think

Re: [DISCUSS] including shaded artifacts in the convenience binary

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > > > On 5/24/18 11:16 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Mike Drob wrote: >>> >>> Are the two issues (HBASE-20615 and HBASE-19735) conflicting, redundant, >>> or >>> orthogonal? >>> >> I think they're orthogonal, at

Re: [DISCUSS] including shaded artifacts in the convenience binary

On 5/24/18 11:16 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Mike Drob wrote: Are the two issues (HBASE-20615 and HBASE-19735) conflicting, redundant, or orthogonal? I think they're orthogonal, at least as they stand. I think the fact that HBASE-19735 doesn't e.g. remove the

Re: [DISCUSS] including shaded artifacts in the convenience binary

On 5/24/18 11:16 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: If we have a minimal client tarball that includes the shaded client and shaded mapreduce modules (and nothing else?) then are we good to go? I think if we have a client tarball that includes the shaded client modules (and other things they need like

Re: [DISCUSS] including shaded artifacts in the convenience binary

Any other feedback here folks? Mike D, you leaning towards the client tarball or just making sure I've considered it? (FWIW, I think the client tarball would work fine practically speaking and don't feel strongly about either approach.) On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:01 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > Hi

Re: [DISCUSS] including shaded artifacts in the convenience binary

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Mike Drob wrote: > Are the two issues (HBASE-20615 and HBASE-19735) conflicting, redundant, or > orthogonal? > I think they're orthogonal, at least as they stand. I think the fact that HBASE-19735 doesn't e.g. remove the shell from the main

Re: [DISCUSS] including shaded artifacts in the convenience binary

Are the two issues (HBASE-20615 and HBASE-19735) conflicting, redundant, or orthogonal? If we have a minimal client tarball that includes the shaded client and shaded mapreduce modules (and nothing else?) then are we good to go? On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:01 AM, Sean Busbey

[DISCUSS] including shaded artifacts in the convenience binary

Hi folks! Over in HBASE-20331 I'm trying to polish up our story around how downstreamers make use of our shaded artifacts. As a part of that I'd like have them present as a part of a "normal" hbase installation. Previously when we've discussed this topic, the assumption was downstream folks