Enis: Agree we should do this (should HBASE-6929 be a blocker?). How we going to do it thoug? It is two poms, right? Second one would be hbase-0.95.0-hadoop2?
St.Ack On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it would be good to have a release -> maven jar mapping for hadoop > 1 and hadoop2. That is why releasing two artifacts build against Hadoop 1 > and 2 respectively makes sense. > > See my poor old issue for background, and rightful arguments from > downstream projects: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6929 > > Having hadoop version appended to the release version would be ugly though. > > Enis > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On 3/22/13, ramkrishna vasudevan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:49 AM, Jimmy Xiang <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > [...] > > >> As to hadoop, how about we ship two: one with hadoop1, the other with > > >> hadoop2? > > >> > > > I agree to this. Actually this will help a lot in case of automatic > > > scripts that tries to use the tarball. If not every time the source > has > > to > > > be recompiled with hadoop 2 and then need to create a tar ball and use > > it. > > > +1 on this. > > > > +1 here too > > > > I also like the idea of producing a single -bin tarball that unpacks > > into something sane. Spent some time recently hacking on the Bigtop > > RPM build for HBase 0.94 to try and deal with the 0.95 layout as is > > right now, but had to move on before getting something that works. It > > will be much easier for Bigtop, and any user, really, if 0.95 (and > > trunk...) looks as much like 0.94 as possible when unpacked from a > > dist tarball. > > >
