I don't know what would need adjusted to get the newer jar file in the
lib directory; or if 2.4 might cause a conflict? Can someone weigh in
with an opinion?

Would be good to cross-reference
http://commons.apache.org/io/upgradeto2_4.html and
http://commons.apache.org/io/upgradeto2_2.html.

Looks like the usage of commons-io classes is rather minimal: `
fgrep -R "org.apache.commons.io" accumulo-trunk/`. Personally, unless
there are known issues, I'm apt to say fix in 1.6. That's just a gut
feeling though; I can't say I'm really adamant one way or the other.

On 02/12/2013 07:33 PM, David Medinets wrote:
> I don't know what would need adjusted to get the newer jar file in the
> lib directory; or if 2.4 might cause a conflict? Can someone weigh in
> with an opinion?
>

Because Instamo is included in v1.5 and it wants commons io v2.4, I'd
vote for it to happen sooner than v1.6 so that users don't have the
change to be confused. Or Instamo can be changed to remove the
dependency. Since this issue is now validated, I'll create a jira
ticket for discussion.

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would be good to cross-reference
> http://commons.apache.org/io/upgradeto2_4.html and
> http://commons.apache.org/io/upgradeto2_2.html.
>
> Looks like the usage of commons-io classes is rather minimal: `
> fgrep -R "org.apache.commons.io" accumulo-trunk/`. Personally, unless there
> are known issues, I'm apt to say fix in 1.6. That's just a gut feeling
> though; I can't say I'm really adamant one way or the other.
>
>
> On 02/12/2013 07:33 PM, David Medinets wrote:
>>
>> I don't know what would need adjusted to get the newer jar file in the
>> lib directory; or if 2.4 might cause a conflict? Can someone weigh in
>> with an opinion?
>>
>

Sounds reasonable to me.

On 02/12/2013 09:59 PM, David Medinets wrote:
> Because Instamo is included in v1.5 and it wants commons io v2.4, I'd
> vote for it to happen sooner than v1.6 so that users don't have the
> change to be confused. Or Instamo can be changed to remove the
> dependency. Since this issue is now validated, I'll create a jira
> ticket for discussion.
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Would be good to cross-reference
>> http://commons.apache.org/io/upgradeto2_4.html and
>> http://commons.apache.org/io/upgradeto2_2.html.
>>
>> Looks like the usage of commons-io classes is rather minimal: `
>> fgrep -R "org.apache.commons.io" accumulo-trunk/`. Personally, unless there
>> are known issues, I'm apt to say fix in 1.6. That's just a gut feeling
>> though; I can't say I'm really adamant one way or the other.
>>
>>
>> On 02/12/2013 07:33 PM, David Medinets wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't know what would need adjusted to get the newer jar file in the
>>> lib directory; or if 2.4 might cause a conflict? Can someone weigh in
>>> with an opinion?
>>>
>>