Can someone make a 1.6 ticket to clarify this confusion in the README? There is undeniable confusion to date but it doesn't seem like anyone minds including public nested classes either. I'd have to scan over the public members of these classes to make sure we don't inadvertantly advertise something we don't intend to. On Mar 28, 2014 12:17 PM, "Bill Havanki" <[email protected]> wrote:
> That was my interpretation as well. > > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Public members, including inner classes, of public classes seem like they > > are de facto Public API. > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Yes. This is exactly what was discussed earlier in this thread. > > > On Mar 28, 2014 10:35 AM, "Christopher" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > That README was probably written without consideration of the > > > > implication for inner-classes. There is a strict interpretation, yes, > > > > but the intent is certainly not clear. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II > > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Sean Busbey < > > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > The README is already clear that everything under those packages is > > > > > included, with the exception of the impl pacakge. > > > > > > > > > > In my reading, that means all Classes and Interfaces in any package > > > under > > > > > the client package, and everything in those classes that is at > either > > > > > public and protected access. > > > > > > > > > > I guess this should be included in our pending discussion about > > > > > compatibility across versions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Also, reading back through this chain, it was state as unclear as > to > > > > >> whether or not an inner class of a class in the public API is > also, > > > > itself, > > > > >> in the public API. > > > > >> > > > > >> This should also be clarified in our definition of public API in > the > > > > >> README. Obviously, Don and Sean both agree that it should be. The > > > > >> discussion of those on the vote didn't. Doesn't really matter to > me > > > > either > > > > >> way. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On 3/28/14, 9:50 AM, Josh Elser wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Ah, I missed the recursiveness of the o.a.a.c.c. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> But, like I mentioned in the other message, I don't think binary > > > compat > > > > >>> was achieved, but the package name, constructors, and methods > > > existing > > > > >>> in 1.5.0 were maintained AFAIK. Are we asserting binary compat > here > > > as > > > > >>> well? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I'm trying to understand if we actually didn't follow our own > > rules, > > > or > > > > >>> if the expectations of the community are exceeding the rules we > > have > > > > for > > > > >>> ourselves. I think we're in the latter right now. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On 3/28/14, 9:41 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> According to the definition of the public API in version 1.5.0, > > > > >>>> RangeInputSplit is a part of the public API. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Josh Elser < > > [email protected]> > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Devil's advocate: RangeInputSplit isn't part of the public API > > > > >>>>> either, so > > > > >>>>> it comes with the same risks that TabletLocator would. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> It sounds more like the definition of "public api" should be > > > > expanded to > > > > >>>>> prevent this in future cases. I need to look at what exactly > > broke > > > > >>>>> for Don. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> On 3/28/14, 9:12 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Don, > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> If you can file a jira with some example code that covers what > > > > parts of > > > > >>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>> 1.5.0 API you hit, I can see if I can a patch to get you > > working. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> That would give you a patch you could apply on top of 1.5.1 > now > > > and > > > > >>>>>> when > > > > >>>>>> 1.5.2 comes out it would correctly support the API. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> -Sean > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Donald Miner < > > > > [email protected] > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> I'm starting to dig around for a workaround and figured > > someone > > > > >>>>>> might be > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> able to help me right away. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> In digging deeper, we were using RangeInputSplit because it > > gave > > > us > > > > >>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>> splits AND the locations. We use the locations for some data > > > > locality > > > > >>>>>>> placing in our distributed application. listSplits only gives > > us > > > > >>>>>>> splits. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Is there an easy way to get both of these pieces of > information > > > > >>>>>>> together? > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Josh Elser < > > > [email protected]> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Ack, sorry about that, Don. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> We probably should have been more strict about that. It's > > tough > > > to > > > > >>>>>>>> make > > > > >>>>>>>> a > > > > >>>>>>>> call about a public class that someone *might* be using. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> On 3/27/14, 12:26 PM, Donald Miner wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Sorry to necro this thread, just wanted to throw my 2 > cents > > > in. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> We had some user code referencing this code directly and > our > > > > >>>>>>>>> application > > > > >>>>>>>>> no > > > > >>>>>>>>> longer works in 1.5.1. Just found out today when installing > > on > > > > >>>>>>>>> 1.5.1. > > > > >>>>>>>>> In > > > > >>>>>>>>> retrospect, we should have been using .listSplits from > > > > >>>>>>>>> TableOperatons, > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> but > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> instead we were using the RangeInputSplit method to get the > > > splits > > > > >>>>>>>> for a > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> table. > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> I guess since we probably shouldn't have been doing that, I > > > don't > > > > >>>>>>>>> know > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> if > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> that's a case for this not being deleted without going to > > > > >>>>>>>> deprecated... > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> but > > > > >>>>>>>>> we did have a nasty surprise and a deprecation warning > would > > > have > > > > >>>>>>>>> been > > > > >>>>>>>>> nice. > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> -d > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Adam Fuchs < > > > [email protected]> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> I'll buy that the RangeInputSplit is probably not > > referenced > > > > >>>>>>>>> directly > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> in > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> user code. In this case it's probably not a big enough > change > > to > > > > >>>>>>>> delay > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>>> release. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Adam > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2014 6:19 PM, "Christopher" < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I don't know that this inner class used for M/R should > be > > > > >>>>>>>>>> considered > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> public API... nor do I imagine it will cause > compatibility > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> problems > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> if > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> users aren't referencing it in their code (which there's > no > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reason to > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> expect them to). I don't know if anybody is subclassing > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> RangeInputSplit, but I'd suspect that it's an acceptable > > > risk. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Re-adding an inner class that subclasses the now external > > one > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> may be > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> good workaround. I don't think this would require > > > recompilation > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> runtime compatibility, but if it does, I think that's > > > probably > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> acceptable. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Josh Elser < > > > > [email protected] > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I haven't checked what would happen. If you subclassed > the > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> RangeInputSplit, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it's rather likely that you'd need a recompilation. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/14, 5:59 PM, John Vines wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Will it? Clients don't interact with that code at all > > > > directly. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Adam Fuchs < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for running that checker, Keith. Should we not > > be > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> worried > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> removal of InputFormatBase.RangeInputSplit? If I read > > > > correctly > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> will > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> break both binary (runtime) compatibility and code > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (compile-time) > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility. Can somebody make an argument for why > this > > > is > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not a > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a minor release with no previous deprecation? > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a quick way to fix this, like by subclassing > > the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> org.apache.accumulo.core.client.mapred.RangeInputSplit > > in > > > a > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> o.a.a.c.c.mapred.InputFormatBase.RangeInputSplit that > we > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mark as > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> deprecated? > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Keith Turner > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I ran a utility [1] to analyze API diffs [2] between > > > 1.5.0 > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.5.1-RC3. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The configs I used are the two xml files in the > parent > > > [3] > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the diff looks ok. I used jars from 1.5.0 > and > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.5.1-RC3 > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bin.tar.gz. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] : > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > http://ispras.linuxbase.org/index.php/Java_API_Compliance_ > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checker > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] : > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > http://people.apache.org/~kturner/1.5.0_to_1.5.1-RC3/ > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compat_report.html > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [3] : > > > > http://people.apache.org/~kturner/1.5.0_to_1.5.1-RC3/ > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Josh Elser < > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please consider the following candidate as Apache > > > Accumulo > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.5.1 > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> now > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with 100% more CHANGES changes. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Git artifacts: The staging repository was built from > the > > > tag > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "1.5.1-rc3" > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3478f71a). > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maven Staging Repo: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> orgapacheaccumulo-1002 > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Source tarball: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> orgapacheaccumulo-1002/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.5. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> 1/accumulo-1.5.1-src.tar.gz > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Binary tarball: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> orgapacheaccumulo-1002/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.5. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> 1/accumulo-1.5.1-bin.tar.gz > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Changes since 1.5.1-RC2: ACCUMULO-2324, > ACCUMULO-2361, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCUMULO-2369, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCUMULO-2378, ACCUMULO-2379, ACCUMULO-2380, > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ACCUMULO-2385, > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCUMULO-2387, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCUMULO-2390 > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keys: http://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Final CHANGES: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=accumulo.git;a= > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > blob_plain;f=CHANGES;hb=3478f71ae888f8d73aaa93837319a6 > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dbb4ba0c8a > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Testing: Unit test and auto-tests passed > successfully. > > > > Ran a > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (~2hrs) > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CI on 6 node installation. Ran a brief (~1hr) CI > test > > on > > > > one > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> with > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the newly-released Hadoop-2.3.0. Built from src > > > tarball, > > > > and > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality with bin tarball. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Since there are very minor changes compared to > 1.5.1-RC2, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vote > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be open for the next 72 hours (2/28/2014 0100 UTC). > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Upon successful completion of this vote, a 1.5.1 > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gpg-signed Git > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tag > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be created from 3478f71a and the above staging > > > repository > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promoted. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Josh > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> -- > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Donald Miner > > > > >>>>>>> Chief Technology Officer > > > > >>>>>>> ClearEdge IT Solutions, LLC > > > > >>>>>>> Cell: 443 799 7807 > > > > >>>>>>> www.clearedgeit.com > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > // Bill Havanki > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions > // 443.686.9283 >
