On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > 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). > > I'd be +1 here too, remove 1.1 as fix version from HBASE-13339 and update the refguide instead
-- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
