accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Billie Rinaldi <billie.rina...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Htrace4, Hadoop 2.7
Date Thu, 07 Jul 2016 22:07:42 GMT
Ah, that makes more sense. I would be fine with bumping the htrace
dependency to match the most recent version of Hadoop that we support and
not doing a shim layer. We might want to check in with any users who are
using the Accumulo+HDFS tracing to see if this would be a problem for them.
I am not sure if anyone is using it or not.

Billie

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> Ah, my mistake. I thought it was 2.7 and later. Well, then I guess the
> question is whether we should bump to 2.8, then. I'm not a fan of the shim
> layer. I'd rather provide support for downstream packagers trying to
> backport for HTrace3, if anybody ends up requiring that, than provide a
> shim to preserve use of the older HTrace.
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 5:30 PM Billie Rinaldi <billie.rinaldi@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm in favor of bumping our Hadoop version to 2.7. We are already on the
> > same htrace version as Hadoop 2.7. (The discussion in ACCUMULO-4171 is
> > relevant to Hadoop 2.8 and later.)
> >
> > Billie
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Thinking about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4171,
> I'm
> > of
> > > the opinion that we should probably bump our Hadoop version to 2.7 and
> > > HTrace version to what Hadoop is using, to keep them in sync.
> > >
> > > Does anybody disagree?
> > >
> >
>

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