On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's fine but we still have unresolved problems: > > > Are the hadoop 2.5.x/2.6.x incompats just a few transitive includes > brought in by hadoop 2.6? Can we not release-note/doc our way a semvar pass > because our brothers upstream are less puritan than us? Heck, lets 'blame' > them! > > We don't have a consensus on what to do about Hadoop 2.5/2.6. I proposed we > doc this like you say here before but got push back. So here I am talking > about renumbering as another path forward. > > Whatever.. but let's decide this now and move on. Do HBASE-13339 in 1.1? > Three possibilities: > 1. No, stay with 2.5 > I'd be +1 here (adding section to refguide on 2.6). St.Ack
