I'm also traveling today. I've already extended the vote for this RC to Sunday, and since no one has said this is a -1 -worthy regression, this candidate continues to stand.
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Formally, -0 > > Given tomorrow is hbasecon perhaps it would be better to spin a RC on > Friday? > > I can take HBASE-13637 but am sitting on a plane at the moment. Won't be > able to get to it until tonight. > > > On May 6, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Andrew Purtell < > andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> I prefer to patch the POMs. > > > > Is this a formal -1? > > > > I've opened HBASE-13637 for tracking this issue. Let's get it fixed and > > I'll spin a new RC tonight. > > > >>> On May 5, 2015, at 4:16 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> So what's the conclusion here? Are we dropping 2.2 support or updating > >> the > >>> poms and sinking the RC? > >>> > >>>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> We could patch our POMs to reference the hadoop-minikdc artifact > >>>>> independently of the rest of the Hadoop packages. It's standalone and > >>>>> rarely changes. > >>>> +1. I've been using HBase to test Hadoop changes for isolating > >> dependencies > >>>> from downstream folks (HADOOP-11804), and I've just been leaving the > >>>> hadoop-minikdc artifact as-is due to these very reasons. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Sean > >> >
