I am in favor of going to Hadoop 3 for Accumulo 2. If we do this then
Accumulo 2 can not release until after Hadoop 3 does. Any idea when
Hadoop 3 will release?
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> Hi Folks!
>
> I think we need to start being more formal
Hi Folks!
I think we need to start being more formal in planning for Hadoop 3.
They're up to 3.0.0-alpha4 and are pushing towards API-locking betas[1].
What do folks think about starting to push on an Accumulo 2.0 release that
only supports Hadoop 3? It would let us move faster, which we'll need
All,
For what it's worth, I'd attempted to run both 1.7.x and 1.8.x on Hadoop
3 and ran into a fairly straightforward dependency issue [1] that, when
addressed, should allow current Accumulo versions to run on Hadoop 3.
Hopefully this means that it's not a large lift to get to the point you're
+1 sounds like a good idea to me.
On 8/3/17 10:08 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
Hi Folks!
I think we need to start being more formal in planning for Hadoop 3.
They're up to 3.0.0-alpha4 and are pushing towards API-locking betas[1].
What do folks think about starting to push on an Accumulo 2.0
Github user joshelser closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/287
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature
There is a 3.0.0-alpha4 release currently available as a non-snapshot
version.
I'm not sure it comes with API stability guarantees at all, IIRC the Hadoop
community is planning on providing that for their betas.
Mike
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Christopher wrote:
>
+1 from me, too, but I'd like to review what actually changes in master for
the migration to happen. I don't know much about Hadoop 3. I'm curious what
the releases will look like (AFAIK, it's only snapshot builds right now; is
that correct?), how our dependencies will change, and what API
Github user ctubbsii commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/253
I rebase'd again, and updated to add an enum for scopes and to simplify
VolumeChooserEnvironment a bit. Other work that needs to be completed:
* per-table scope needs to use the table
Github user ctubbsii commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/289
Oh, nice! Thanks for working on this @glitch ; I took a brief look and I
think this is basically what we need. I didn't do a thorough review, though.
I'll try to get to that soon, if nobody else
GitHub user glitch opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/289
ACCUMULO-4677 Sanitizing PathParam values in REST-based Monitor
I took a swing at this one. I wasn't fully sure what the bounds on some of
the params should be (i.e. should minutes be bound
10 matches
Mail list logo