Return-Path: 
 <accumulo-dev-return-2657-apmail-incubator-accumulo-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-accumulo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-accumulo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 27C7D9D54
	for <apmail-incubator-accumulo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org>;
 Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:45:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 95840 invoked by uid 500); 22 Mar 2012 20:45:57 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-accumulo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 95737 invoked by uid 500); 22 Mar 2012 20:45:56 -0000
Mailing-List: contact accumulo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:accumulo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:accumulo-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:accumulo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
List-Id: <accumulo-dev.incubator.apache.org>
Reply-To: accumulo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list accumulo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 95727 invoked by uid 99); 22 Mar 2012 20:45:56 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:45:56 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0
	tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from [206.112.75.239] (HELO iron-u-b-out.osis.gov) (206.112.75.239)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:45:49 +0000
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: 
 AukEAPuNa0+sEAbx/2dsb2JhbABBA65NiGiBD4IJAQEBAwESAmoLCwsNLiITBR0HEhQOh2OaYgqdUI09gycElV+QKIMD
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,632,1325480400";
   d="scan'208";a="8784026"
Received: from ghost-a.center.osis.gov (HELO mail-yw0-f47.google.com)
 ([172.16.6.241])
  by iron-u-b-in.osis.gov with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 22 Mar 2012 16:43:45 -0400
Received: by yhjj56 with SMTP id j56so2238632yhj.6
        for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.223.67 with SMTP id qs3mr23279222pbc.142.1332449126090;
 Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.141.14 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: 
 <585288691.232676.1332275398175.JavaMail.root@linzimmb04o.imo.intelink.gov>
References: 
 <199737055.224777.1332176326567.JavaMail.root@linzimmb04o.imo.intelink.gov>
 <CADczPYQ=BpnwLj4A-fsJeWWvA0ShC+8NG4z_qT1wE8pf8uX40Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <3C00AD2E-4B34-402C-A715-7BC965D0CB00@cray.com>
 <CADxc9Bk-QAdbXW-fyYYfFyJzHPt-eLgchthvte5UOECooGW_+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <883862977.232333.1332269401141.JavaMail.root@linzimmb04o.imo.intelink.gov>
 <CADczPYR6WG4BBHa1iJwDRSwo66uEZ-erW+d21m6u81yfVu3_4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <585288691.232676.1332275398175.JavaMail.root@linzimmb04o.imo.intelink.gov>
From: John Vines <john.w.vines@ugov.gov>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:45:05 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CADczPYS2cryTR3_UBU-AAYBCe3n+Ji+ebyaFC32Z1URJt2F+CQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Maven Artifacts for 1.3.5 missing?
To: accumulo-user@incubator.apache.org, accumulo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e0713d7866d04bbdafc4d
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

--047d7b2e0713d7866d04bbdafc4d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Well, I spoke two soon. There are two pending tickets on my plate
(Accumulo-404, running on top of kerberoized hdfs and Accumulo-489,
passwords are not secured with input format) that are a lot easier to
implement, if not only feasible, against 20.203+ (CDH3u0+). It is possible
to do version checking within the code and then calling via reflection, but
that is ugly, ugly code that I think we'd be best to avoid. So I ask the
community, do we have any reasons NOT to migrate our minimum version to
20.203 now that we have a need for a newer version?

John

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Robert Vesse <rvesse@yarcdata.com> wrote:

>  I was just interested since 0.20.2 is now two years old if there was any
> compelling reason (other than QA requirements) to stay with that version
>
>  Rob
>
> Rob Vesse -- YarcData.com -- A Division of Cray Inc
> Software Engineer, Bay Area
> m: 925.960.3941  |  o: 925.264.4729 | @: rvesse@yarcdata.com  |  Skype:
> rvesse
> 6210 Stoneridge Mall Rd  |  Suite 120  | Pleasanton CA, 94588
>
>
>  On Mar 20, 2012, at 12:26 PM, John Vines wrote:
>
>  We don't depend on any specific features of 20.205, so I don't know why
> we need to update the minimum version. I know many of us have been working
> with 20.205 without issue.
>
> John
>
> Sent from my phone, so pardon the typos and brevity.
> On Mar 20, 2012 2:50 PM, "Robert Vesse" <rvesse@yarcdata.com> wrote:
>
>>  I haven't looked at the 1.4 branch in detail, did you guys move to a
>> newer version of Hadoop as well, the 1.3.5 release uses the comparatively
>> ancient 0.20.2 version of Hadoop
>>
>> Rob Vesse -- YarcData.com -- A Division of Cray Inc
>> Software Engineer, Bay Area
>> m: 925.960.3941  |  o: 925.264.4729 | @: rvesse@yarcdata.com  |  Skype:
>> rvesse
>> 6210 Stoneridge Mall Rd  |  Suite 120  | Pleasanton CA, 94588
>>
>>
>>  On Mar 19, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Eric Newton wrote:
>>
>> Yes, the 1.4 branch is considered stable.
>>
>>  We've been pounding on 1.4 for quite a while.  The scale of the testing
>> has over a longer period of time, more complete and more aggressive.
>> Another team has been using it for some benchmark testing at scale, and it
>> is remarkable for the *lack* of problems.
>>
>>  No, you cannot mix 1.3 clients with 1.4 servers.  We jumped from 0.3 of
>> thrift to 0.6.1, and that was a huge change for us; I'm not even sure if it
>> can be on-the-wire compatible.  Our goal is to ensure compatibility for
>> 1.X.* level for any constant X.  But a switch from 1.X to 1.Y... we'll
>> remove deprecated APIs, and break on-the-wire compatibility.
>>
>>  -Eric
>>
>>  On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Robert Vesse <rvesse@yarcdata.com>wrote:
>>
>>>  Is the 1.4.0 branch considered stable enough for use?  And is it the
>>> API compatible between 1.3.5 and 1.4.0 or do both the database and the
>>> client need to be on the exact same version for communication to work
>>> correctly?
>>>
>>>  Rob
>>>
>>>  On Mar 19, 2012, at 10:06 AM, John Vines wrote:
>>>
>>> I believe we don't have them distributed because our poms do not include
>>> adequate licensing info for us to publicly release them. 1.4.0 should be
>>> released when we release it though.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Robert Vesse <rvesse@yarcdata.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is there a reason why Maven artifacts for 1.3.5 are not available in
>>>> the Apache repositories?
>>>>
>>>> Which Maven repositories (if any) are they available in?
>>>>
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

--047d7b2e0713d7866d04bbdafc4d--