Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
Accumulo, mail # dev - Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release?


+
David Medinets 2013-05-13, 03:22
+
Christopher 2013-05-13, 03:45
+
Josh Elser 2013-05-13, 14:40
+
Christopher 2013-05-13, 15:08
+
David Medinets 2013-05-13, 21:29
+
Eric Newton 2013-05-14, 02:48
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-05-17, 14:26
+
Billie Rinaldi 2013-05-17, 14:49
+
Christopher 2013-05-17, 15:53
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-05-17, 18:04
+
Christopher 2013-05-17, 18:31
+
Keith Turner 2013-05-17, 18:46
+
Josh Elser 2013-05-17, 18:22
+
William Slacum 2013-05-17, 18:49
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-05-17, 19:11
+
John Vines 2013-05-17, 19:17
+
Josh Elser 2013-05-17, 19:35
+
John Vines 2013-05-17, 19:51
+
Michael Berman 2013-05-17, 20:00
+
Josh Elser 2013-05-17, 20:20
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-05-17, 21:12
+
Billie Rinaldi 2013-05-17, 21:39
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-05-18, 02:11
+
Christopher 2013-05-18, 02:39
+
Dave Marion 2013-05-17, 22:01
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release?
Christopher 2013-05-17, 21:53
Thanks for that link, Billie. It was informative.

>From that, it seems clear that what we should focus on, is voting on,
when it comes to binary packages, is the *ability* of the source
tarball to produce the binaries that we wish it to produce, since it
is only the source package that we are voting on for the purposes of a
release. It does seem that presently, (aside from not including
*.dylib, which I think somebody mentioned), the source package is
capable of producing the binaries we wish it to.

These are a separate issue from the convenience binaries we *happen to
have produced* with that source. (which I think is still good to have
consensus on, but should not be the primary issue of holding up a
release). These are really gravy (perhaps very delicious gravy, but
still gravy).

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Billie Rinaldi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 17, 2013 5:13 PM, "Adam Fuchs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm with Michael on this one. We should really only be releasing one
>> package that has all of the source and built binaries. IMO the
>> interpretation of http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html that we must have
>> a source-only release is overly restrictive. "Every ASF release must
>> contain a source package, which must be sufficient for a user to build and
>> test the release provided they have access to the appropriate platform and
>> tools." can also be interpreted such that a single package with source and
>> binaries meets the release requirement.
>
> In lieu of ranting myself, I'll point you here: http://s.apache.org/nnN
>
> Billie
>
>>
>> I have seen a lot of confusion about people trying to build the accumulo
>> code when they really don't need to, and they often run into trouble when
>> their environment is not set up for java development. Having multiple
>> .tar.gz artifacts adds to this confusion. When we reordered the download
>> page so that the -dist.tar.gz came before the -src.tar.gz those types of
>> questions dropped dramatically on the mailing list. The existence of the
>> -src.tar.gz creates confusion on its own (although our README doesn't
> help).
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Michael Berman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > As an Accumulo user, the thing I want most is a single package that
>> > contains the things I need to set up a running instance.  I don't want
> to
>> > build the whole thing from source, but I am happy to build the native
> map,
>> > unless every possible architecture is going to be distributed.  I really
>> > don't care at all whether the tarball name ends in "-bin" or "-package"
> or
>> > "-theStuffYouWant".  If the only reason not to include the native map
>> > sources in the binary release is because the filename ends in -bin, why
> not
>> > just call it accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:51 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > If we're going to be making binary releases that have no other
> mechanism
>> > > for creating the native libraries, then we should probably cut a few
>> > > different binary releases for x86, amd64, and darwin at the very
> least.
>> > >
>> > > Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity.
>> > > On May 17, 2013 12:36 PM, "Josh Elser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I'm happy we're stating our opinions here, but there are also two
> other
>> > > > people who believe that the bin should not contain it. That's nice
> that
>> > > you
>> > > > want source code in a binary release, but your opinion is not the
> only
>> > > one.
>> > > > I feel like you're telling me that my opinion is sub-par to your
>> > opinion
>> > > > because it is.
>> > > >
>> > > > If this is such a sticking point, I move that we completely kill the
>> > > > notion of source and binary releases and make one tarball that
> contains
>> > > > both.
>> > > >
>> > > > On 5/17/13 3:17 PM, John Vines wrote:
+
Drew Pierce 2013-05-17, 21:42
+
Michael Allen 2013-05-17, 21:19
+
Christopher 2013-05-17, 21:39
+
Josh Elser 2013-05-17, 21:36
+
William Slacum 2013-05-17, 21:34
+
Billie Rinaldi 2013-05-17, 20:26
+
William Slacum 2013-05-17, 20:57
+
Corey Nolet 2013-05-17, 19:19
+
William Slacum 2013-05-17, 19:34
+
Christopher 2013-05-14, 00:43
+
Billie Rinaldi 2013-05-13, 14:21
+
Christopher 2013-05-13, 15:13
+
John Vines 2013-05-13, 15:34
+
Christopher 2013-05-13, 21:18
+
Josh Elser 2013-05-13, 23:37
+
Christopher 2013-05-14, 00:42
+
Christopher 2013-05-13, 03:46
+
David Medinets 2013-05-13, 12:26
+
Christopher 2013-05-13, 13:45