Is it an intention to use the same version as hbase 2. Or is it just coincidental, and we can not really peg them?
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:08 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On 11/28/17 4:54 PM, Stack wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Wanted to get some input on the versioning scheme for our > hbase-thirdparty > >> artifacts. > >> > >> We are moving all of the relocation from o.a.h.shaded to > o.a.h.thirdparty > >> due to conflicts with our non-thirdparty shaded libraries. Currently, > the > >> next release is slated to be of the thirdparty libs is slated to be > 1.0.2, > >> however the package change seems like a big deal. > >> > >> I propose that we go to 1.1.0 or 2.0.0 even with this. Version numbers > are > >> cheap, we won't run out, so we can afford to be aggressive with > >> incrementing them. And we don't have to worry about other users of this, > >> since it's all designed to be internal. > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> > > 2.0.0 > > +1 >
