On 1/3/14, 11:17 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
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?
Ah, you are correct. I haven't run into the problem lately, so I assumed
it was from them being included in the dist.
Point of reference: HBase-0.96.0 will pull *all* dependencies into
$HBASE_HOME/lib. Now, while I don't think I want to re-package all of
the Hadoop jars and its dependencies, I don't think it's unreasonable to
repackage ones that may be duplicated by the hadoop distribution that we
specifically need (thinking specifically of the commons-*).
