Even if they do - especially if they do - we should consider doing the same for our downstreamers.
> On Jul 11, 2016, at 8:12 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would think so yes > >> On Jul 11, 2016, at 7:31 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> If Hadoop shades their protobuf that should keep any altering they do from >> impacting us, right? >> >> -- >> Sean Busbey >>> On Jul 9, 2016 3:02 PM, "Andrew Purtell" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> PB3 sounds like a plan for 2.0 but what about all shipping versions. >>> >>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> The plan in HBASE-15638 is to shade our protobuf so we are independent of >>>> anyone else's protobuf and so we can move on to one of our choosing or >>> even >>>> check in our own protobuf if we have to (protobuf is lacking in support >>> for >>>> offheap). Anoop and Ram are thinking we should go to pb3. I'll let them >>>> talk of the testing they have done so far. >>>> >>>> St.Ack >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> We should look at HBASE-15638 again in light of HADOOP-13363. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> - Andy >>>>> >>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet >>> Hein >>>>> (via Tom White) >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> >>> - Andy >>> >>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein >>> (via Tom White) >>>
