accumulo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Vesse <rve...@yarcdata.com>
Subject Re: Maven Artifacts for 1.3.5 missing?
Date Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:15:26 GMT
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<http://YarcData.com> -- A Division of Cray Inc
Software Engineer, Bay Area
m: 925.960.3941  |  o: 925.264.4729 | @: rvesse@yarcdata.com<mailto:rvesse@yarcdata.com>
 |  Skype: rvesse
6210 Stoneridge Mall Rd  |  Suite 120  | Pleasanton CA, 94588

[cid:BC8A5E0A-0B0A-43B5-87B5-93039573F2CD@americas.cray.com]

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<mailto: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<http://YarcData.com/> -- A Division of Cray Inc
Software Engineer, Bay Area
m: 925.960.3941<tel:925.960.3941>  |  o: 925.264.4729<tel:925.264.4729> | @: rvesse@yarcdata.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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






Mime
View raw message