accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: A defense for ACCUMULO-1395 in 1.6.0
Date Mon, 07 Apr 2014 15:35:16 GMT
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> Okay, so it sounds like all those who objected to this for 1.6.0 are
> okay with the compromise of leaving the examples in place for 1.6.0.
> So, I'll proceed with that. Thanks, all!
>
> (Mike, I'm not sure it how to mark it as experimental, or that it is
> experimental in the first place, but from what you've said, and
> clarification in IRC, it sounds like you're not going to be too hung
> up on that.)
>
> +1


> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > If there is a way to mark the changes as experimental in 1.6.0 I would be
> > most happy with that, otherwise just applying them and leaving the
> examples
> > is fine. Removing the examples from 1.7 is the way to go, in my opinion.
> >
> > My main issue was that this change would be very surprising for
> downstream
> > consumers who are trying to do deployments, and we haven't had very much
> > time to test it.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 9:00 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm okay with Josh's suggestion of both.
> >>
> >> Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity.
> >>
> >> On Apr 5, 2014 10:23 PM, "Christopher" <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Acknowledged.
> >>>
> >>> I do want to hear from Mike Drob and John Vines first before I take
> >>> any further action on this, though. If they're okay with what Sean and
> >>> Josh suggested (making the changes to 1.6.0 without removing the
> >>> examples), I'll do that. If not, I'll re-apply the commit to 1.7.0
> >>> only.
> >>>
> >>> Either way, I'll put in a follow-on ticket for auto-generating the
> >>> example configs in the build and moving them from conf/ to docs/ in
> >>> 1.7.0. I'll still wait for their feedback first, though, so I get the
> >>> initial wording of those tickets right.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> > You have to think about the impact that you put on people downstream
> >>> > that
> >>> > are expecting those files to be in place. Packagers, most notably,
> >>> > would be
> >>> > affected. It's not just that there is an example that someone can
> >>> > interpret,
> >>> > but also automated processes or tutorials/howtos that people have
> >>> > written
> >>> > that expect these files to exist.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On 4/5/2014 12:57 PM, Christopher wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Personally, I think the template serves as a sufficient example,
and
> >>> >> the generated files after executing the bootstrap_config script
> should
> >>> >> also serve the same purpose, but I can appreciate the lower impact
> >>> >> (especially to documentation that may refer to examples) of leaving
> >>> >> the examples in place.
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message