lgtm.

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote:

> FYI, HBASE-20276 has now been committed to all impacted branches.
>
> If folks have a chance to review the proposed release note, that'd be
> grand.
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 2:55 PM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote:
> > +1 ditto -- this one is better to revert and ask forgiveness on from
> users,
> > IMO.
> >
> >
> > On 4/3/18 3:27 PM, Apekshit Sharma wrote:
> >>
> >> +1 on going back to old behavior, i.e. returning values, in branch-1 and
> >> 2.0 release.
> >>
> >> bq. Open question: should we also revert this change in branch-1.4, even
> >> though
> >> it means the shell will behave very differently between maintenance
> >> releases?
> >> Earlier, i was inclining towards reverting the behavior in next 1.4.x
> too,
> >> but not so much now. Probably a sooner 1.5 is better idea?
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:50 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi folks!
> >>>
> >>> Wanted to bring your attention to HBASE-20276 "[shell] confirm shell
> >>> REPL change and document".
> >>>
> >>> tl;dr: there's a change currently in 1.4.{0..3} and 2.0.0-* that makes
> >>> us not return values from any shell commands. current consensus is
> >>> that this fundamentally breaks the shell and we should revert it. At
> >>> least one person (me) believes that we should not treat releases with
> >>> this behavior as our stable / recommend release line.
> >>>
> >>> Patch shortly going in for branch-1 and newer that reverts the
> behavior.
> >>>
> >>> Open question: should we also revert this change in branch-1.4, even
> >>> though it means the shell will behave very differently between
> >>> maintenance releases?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>



-- 

-- Appy

Reply via email to