hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: HADOOP-13363
Date Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:12:23 GMT
I would think so yes 

> On Jul 11, 2016, at 7:31 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
> 
> If Hadoop shades their protobuf that should keep any altering they do from
> impacting us, right?
> 
> -- 
> Sean Busbey
>> On Jul 9, 2016 3:02 PM, "Andrew Purtell" <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> PB3 sounds like a plan for 2.0 but what about all shipping versions.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The plan in HBASE-15638 is to shade our protobuf so we are independent of
>>> anyone else's protobuf and so we can move on to one of our choosing or
>> even
>>> check in our own protobuf if we have to (protobuf is lacking in support
>> for
>>> offheap). Anoop and Ram are thinking we should go to pb3. I'll let them
>>> talk of the testing they have done so far.
>>> 
>>> St.Ack
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> We should look at HBASE-15638 again in light of HADOOP-13363.
>>>> ​​
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>>   - Andy
>>>> 
>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
>> Hein
>>>> (via Tom White)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> 
>>   - Andy
>> 
>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>> (via Tom White)
>> 

Mime
View raw message