herp, ignore that "As a side note" line. I was crafting something else and came back later. Forgot to clean it up.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:14 PM, William Slacum < [email protected]> wrote: > The language of ACCUMULO-1795 indicated that an acceptable state was > something that wasn't binary compatible. That's my #1 thing to avoid. > > > Maybe expressly only doing a binary convenience package for > > 0.20.203.0? > > If we need an extra package, doesn't that mean a user can't just upgrade > Accumulo? > > As a side note, 0.20.203.0 is 1.4, > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Sean Busbey > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:28 PM, William Slacum < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > A user of 1.4.a should be able to move to 1.4.b without any "major" >> > infrastructure changes, such as swapping out HDFS or installing extra >> > add-ons. >> > >> > >> >> Right, exactly. Hopefully no part of the original plan contradicts this. >> Is >> there something that appears to? >> >> >> -- >> Sean >> > >
