Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
  b=KvO5qIS57pICJSnmBAmuUKZmB/M9z3iEywHtfIPpdflv82tDXJadG0iokILS6DJB587Oy5NQIT2q4zNASr9xR31Fga4CFWLRudk8BKy/RIa7mpxuhgwQQlQyhOMPEpeen9LluHYc0WOUyoviBiNxxM9cjJAaygVxAT3jGWpmYXQ=;
References: 
 <CALte62z9FMZ6X=kV-Fcv49G2NF9MD_i_EgB8BcaJFEwyG7M-_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADcMMgEesPiJ56Vz1gDobN+85hmNnn3p9OArrBNci1-GKQyYjg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1363733257.57099.YahooMailNeo@web140603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
Reply-To: lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
Subject: Re: HBase 0.94 build on top of hadoop 2.0
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADcMMgEesPiJ56Vz1gDobN+85hmNnn3p9OArrBNci1-GKQyYjg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="-1172831624-1840911695-1363733257=:57099"

---1172831624-1840911695-1363733257=:57099
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Seems more useful than HBase on Hadoop 0.23.=0AI think we should either ret=
ire the HBase-on-0.23 tests or move them to Hadoop 2.0. I'd vote the latter=
.=0A=0A-- Lars=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: Stack <=
stack@duboce.net>=0ATo: HBase Dev List <dev@hbase.apache.org> =0ASent: Tues=
day, March 19, 2013 3:41 PM=0ASubject: Re: HBase 0.94 build on top of hadoo=
p 2.0=0A =0AOn Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> w=
rote:=0A=0A> Should we have a standalone build for hadoop 2.0 ?=0A>=0A=0AI =
would say no.=A0 File an issue though.=A0 If a patch for hbase to make it=
=0Awork, attach it.=0ASt.Ack
---1172831624-1840911695-1363733257=:57099--