Hi, I think this may cause issues for C++ client, which relies on protobuf 2.5.
It would be good to keep protobuf 2.5. On OS X, you can use homebrew-versions to get an older version of protoc: https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-versions Thanks, Xiao ________________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Chris Westin <[email protected]> Sent: March 19, 2015 2:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: My last patch moved us to protobuf 2.6 Jacques just committed my patch for DRILL-2245. Among other things, this moved us to protobuf 2.6 (we were on 2.5, release notes are here https://code.google.com/p/protobuf/source/browse/trunk/CHANGES.txt). I needed to add some new enum symbols to QueryState, which required regenerating some of the .proto files. I didn't have protoc from before. When I did a search, the top result was for how to install protoc using brew. When I did that, I got 2.6. When I regenerated the .java files for the .protos, about half a dozen of them changed, but the changes were all comments, so I didn't think anything of it. I don't think it should be a problem, but just wanted to check to see if anyone knows of a reason we shouldn't do this. If so, then I can submit another patch just to downgrade protoc back to 2.5 (that's a better bet than trying to undo this rather large patch). Chris
