Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.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=2ue6bvytx4FNFUpdVwSzxqYGah6QmOpypnxkuc6B8ZlwRdQS2LOG6VP06GRU4c+hxH1OzkwMzUJ6wO9GOWvHq2SFooYjcowI7Gt4oBYtzkwP76fyhLztFLFKGBXy/tWp0rAWqJIKHsxv7o2h6gik0HbYVgfleVG5xTv3qQL19Wc=;
References: <1395893056.71602.YahooMailNeo@web140605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<CAB5sDNKKLW2+KA6+zxLPEoG8O0yoL9MtGS0KXKYEFre0fQUXiw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADfYSXSPz7g+zq+w-pXA6_tfPsawz+Yk+3WHsV79aJrnfPnGKA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1395953184.86574.YahooMailNeo@web140601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
Reply-To: lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
Subject: Re: 0.94 non-secure tarballs
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADfYSXSPz7g+zq+w-pXA6_tfPsawz+Yk+3WHsV79aJrnfPnGKA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="969045052-2111011608-1395953184=:86574"

--969045052-2111011608-1395953184=:86574
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Cool. Thanks Jesse, Stack, and Gary.=0AI filed a ticket to do so... And pro=
bably mess up the pom horribly until somebody shows me how to it.=0A=0A-- L=
ars=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: Gary Helmling <ghe=
lmling@gmail.com>=0ATo: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org> =0ASe=
nt: Thursday, March 27, 2014 10:04 AM=0ASubject: Re: 0.94 non-secure tarbal=
ls=0A =0A=0A+1, seems fine to eliminate the non-secure builds now.=0A=0AThe=
 main reason for doing security as a separate profile was to make it=0Aposs=
ible to continue to build and run HBase on a pre-1.0 Hadoop (Hadoop=0Awitho=
ut the security classes referenced in the HBase security code).=A0 We=0Adon=
't even have a profile for a non-secure Hadoop anymore, so I can't see=0Ath=
is being an issue any longer.=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:39 PM, J=
esse Yates <jesse.k.yates@gmail.com>wrote:=0A=0A> +1=0A>=0A> Might need a g=
ood set of documentation the first couple times, but seems=0A> reasonable.=
=0A> On Mar 26, 2014 9:04 PM, "lars hofhansl" <larsh@apache.org> wrote:=0A>=
=0A> > I am thinking to stop releasing the tarballs without the security co=
de.=0A> > They do not really add anything, the secure tarballs work perfect=
ly OK=0A> > without security. The secure builds just have some source and c=
lass=0A> files.=0A> >=0A> > I would also get rid of the non-secure build co=
mpletely and just have one=0A> > way to build HBase.=0A> >=0A> > Any object=
ions? Are there any other reasons to build both a secure and=0A> > non-secu=
re tarball? Export restrictions, or anything?=0A> >=0A> > I think that woul=
d also make it trivial to release the secure bits to=0A> > maven (but maven=
 is black magic to me, so I do not know for sure).=0A> >=0A> > -- Lars=0A>
--969045052-2111011608-1395953184=:86574--