On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:14 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. >> >> > Ah. So I see, not sure why I phrased that that way. Since the default build > should still be 0.20.203.0, I'm not sure how it'd end up not being binary > compatible. I can update the ticket to clarify the language. Any need to > compile should be limited to running Hadoop 2.2.0. > > Sound good?
+1 (The confusing wording was the basis for my concerns also.) >> > 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? >> > > By "binary convenience package" I mean the binary distribution tarball (or > rpms, or whatevs) that we make as a part of the release process. For users > of Hadoop 0.20.203.0, upgrading should be unchanged from how they would > normally get their Accumulo 1.4.x distribution. > > ACCUMULO-1796 has some leeway about the convenience packages for people who > want Hadoop 2 support. On the extreme end, they'd have to build from source > and then run a normal upgrade process. I'd prefer binary compatibility with a single build, but if that's too hard to achieve, I have no objection to providing a mechanism to perform an alternate build against 2.x (whether or not we provide a pre-built binary package for it), so long as the default build is 0.20.x -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
