No nothing egregious just was looking at the warnings and some of the javadoc for classes like HTable mentioning it being part of the public API anymore. So I was just going to take a stab at cleaning up those warnings to avoid issues when we take the next version but wasn't sure if there was a strategic reason to avoid that work.
> On Jun 29, 2015, at 11:08 PM, Josh Wills <jwi...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > 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>
