Ahh, thanks, gentlemen.
Andrew Purtell wrote:
Yeah, let's finish that.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Ted Yu wrote:
See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14172
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Josh Elser wrote:
Hi,
In looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE
Yeah, let's finish that.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Ted Yu wrote:
> See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14172
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Josh Elser wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > In looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14800, I saw
> > that the current
See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14172
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Josh Elser wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14800, I saw
> that the current libthrift dependency on master was at 0.9.2, but the
> generated code still has the 0.9.0
Hi,
In looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14800, I saw
that the current libthrift dependency on master was at 0.9.2, but the
generated code still has the 0.9.0 comments.
Is there a reason for that? Should the libthrift version defined in the
poms be the de-facto version u