hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jerry He <jerry...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] hbase-thirdparty versioning
Date Wed, 29 Nov 2017 00:21:29 GMT
Is it an intention to use the same version as hbase 2. Or is it just
coincidental, and we can not really peg them?

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:08 PM Josh Elser <elserj@apache.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 11/28/17 4:54 PM, Stack wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Wanted to get some input on the versioning scheme for our
> hbase-thirdparty
> >> artifacts.
> >>
> >> We are moving all of the relocation from o.a.h.shaded to
> o.a.h.thirdparty
> >> due to conflicts with our non-thirdparty shaded libraries. Currently,
> the
> >> next release is slated to be of the thirdparty libs is slated to be
> 1.0.2,
> >> however the package change seems like a big deal.
> >>
> >> I propose that we go to 1.1.0 or 2.0.0 even with this. Version numbers
> are
> >> cheap, we won't run out, so we can afford to be aggressive with
> >> incrementing them. And we don't have to worry about other users of this,
> >> since it's all designed to be internal.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >>
> > 2.0.0
>
> +1
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message