When I wrote it, I was mainly interested in the minimum amount of change that would get tests to pass, even if it led to deprecation warnings. Was there anything you noticed that was particularly egregious?
J On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Micah Whitacre <mkw...@gmail.com> wrote: > So I was poking around the HBase code and noticed the deprecation warnings > around using HTable vs Table as well as using strings for table names > instead of TableName. With the CRUNCH-475, how much passivity or backwards > compatibility are we shooting for? Support 0.98? Or fully expect HBase > 1.0.0 or higher? > > [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CRUNCH-475 > -- Director of Data Science Cloudera <http://www.cloudera.com> Twitter: @josh_wills <http://twitter.com/josh_wills>
