On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 2) Should we document commons-configuration similar to commons-io? >> >> The README already has a section about how some older versions of Hadoop >> don't have commons-io. I think the versions given need to be tightened up >> given (1) above (since right now it implicitly refers to versions people >> should not be using). >> >> The only Hadoop distro I know of that both has proper append support and >> does not have commons-configuration is CDH3. In addition to being a >> vendor-specific version, it is no longer supported by said vendor. >> >> So would it be preferable to >> >> 2a) add a note after the commons-io section that gives similar >> instructions for adding commons-configuration? >> >> 2b) file a jira that points out that users on CDH3 won't have commons >> configuration, document the work around on said ticket, close it as >> won'tfix >> >> The idea with the latter approach is that it would give searchers a chance >> to find the information and give us somewhere to point people, while not >> adding to our long-term documentation baggage. The downside is that this >> won't be as accessible to users, so it will be more painful for them (esp >> if they don't have regular internet access). >> > > I'm not sure of what's best to do here. 1.6 undid the provided scope on > those dependencies because 1.5 was such a pain to deal with in this regard > (at least that's how I remember it). Perhaps a Jira is a good reference > point and we can link to the ticket which made that change in 1.6. I doubt > most users will find that on their own, but perhaps some might and it at > least would keep us from having to repeat the same answer. > > >> I thought we undid the provided scope but still did not include them in our packaging?
