lgtm. On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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
