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 15:38:06 GMT
Even if they do - especially if they do - we should consider doing the same for our downstreamers.



> On Jul 11, 2016, at 8:12 AM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purtell@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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