Stack 2013-03-22, 04:17
ramkrishna vasudevan 2013-03-22, 03:29
Andrew Purtell 2013-03-22, 22:59
Stack 2013-03-23, 03:52
Andrew Purtell 2013-03-25, 20:53
Enis Söztutar 2013-03-25, 21:00
Nick Dimiduk 2013-03-25, 21:06
Stack 2013-03-26, 05:26
Enis Söztutar 2013-03-23, 02:02
-Re: Working on assemblies for 0.95
Stack 2013-03-23, 03:37
Agree we should do this (should HBASE-6929 be a blocker?). How we going
to do it thoug? It is two poms, right? Second one would be
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Enis Söztutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it would be good to have a release -> maven jar mapping for hadoop
> 1 and hadoop2. That is why releasing two artifacts build against Hadoop 1
> and 2 respectively makes sense.
> See my poor old issue for background, and rightful arguments from
> downstream projects:
> Having hadoop version appended to the release version would be ugly though.
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On 3/22/13, ramkrishna vasudevan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:49 AM, Jimmy Xiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > [...]
> > >> As to hadoop, how about we ship two: one with hadoop1, the other with
> > >> hadoop2?
> > >>
> > > I agree to this. Actually this will help a lot in case of automatic
> > > scripts that tries to use the tarball. If not every time the source
> > to
> > > be recompiled with hadoop 2 and then need to create a tar ball and use
> > it.
> > > +1 on this.
> > +1 here too
> > I also like the idea of producing a single -bin tarball that unpacks
> > into something sane. Spent some time recently hacking on the Bigtop
> > RPM build for HBase 0.94 to try and deal with the 0.95 layout as is
> > right now, but had to move on before getting something that works. It
> > will be much easier for Bigtop, and any user, really, if 0.95 (and
> > trunk...) looks as much like 0.94 as possible when unpacked from a
> > dist tarball.