I've been testing in my development environment with 1.0... I did have to
remove the check in the accumulo script that checks for 0.20.*, but other
than that it seems good.

We'll have to wait until we do a full QA cycle against it before we change
the dependency.  I don't do a lot of mapreduce in my day-to-day
development, for example.

-Eric

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 2:41 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>