Sorry Sean - I've missed the thread somehow. So, yes - let's combine the two:
they are of course very closely related.
Cos
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:23PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> Hey Cos,
>
> A couple of weeks ago I started a thread on what kind of compatibility
> needs have to be met when updatin
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> Responses inline
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
>
> > I've always found working with the jruby part of the hbase shell jarring
> > because many of the hbase commands don't interact "natively" with jruby
> > const
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> Hiya Folks!
>
> Right now, the HBase shell relies on an old version of JRuby (1.6, last
> released ~2 years ago) and a very old version of Ruby (1.8).
>
>
Yeah. Last time this came up we passed on upgrade since 1.7.x complete jar
is many meg
... there is not integration test coverage including shell for admin
actions today
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> No
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Ted Yu wrote:
>>
>> > bq. Existing shell commands in t
No
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Ted Yu wrote:
>
> > bq. Existing shell commands in the exact form they have now?
> >
> > Admin job quite often relies on using hbase shell commands. I think the
> > above is desirable.
> >
> >
>
> Any cha
darn, missed the inclusion of my links about the pain around moving Ruby
1.8 -> 1.9. Also "well documented" is relative. ;)
[2]:
http://nerds.airbnb.com/upgrading-from-ree-187-to-ruby-193/
http://www.darkridge.com/~jpr5/2012/10/03/ruby-1.8.7-1.9.3-migration/
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Sean
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Ted Yu wrote:
> bq. Existing shell commands in the exact form they have now?
>
> Admin job quite often relies on using hbase shell commands. I think the
> above is desirable.
>
>
Any chance there's an integration test that could provide some coverage of
keeping t
Responses inline
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
> I've always found working with the jruby part of the hbase shell jarring
> because many of the hbase commands don't interact "natively" with jruby
> constructs. Some work was done [1] [2] to make it a little better but i
I've always found working with the jruby part of the hbase shell jarring
because many of the hbase commands don't interact "natively" with jruby
constructs. Some work was done [1] [2] to make it a little better but it
is in that uncanny half-there half-not-there state.
More inline
[1] https://is
bq. Existing shell commands in the exact form they have now?
Admin job quite often relies on using hbase shell commands. I think the
above is desirable.
Cheers
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> Hiya Folks!
>
> Right now, the HBase shell relies on an old version of JRuby (
Hiya Folks!
Right now, the HBase shell relies on an old version of JRuby (1.6, last
released ~2 years ago) and a very old version of Ruby (1.8).
I'd like to start working towards refactoring the shell. Updating some of
our underlying libraries will make it easier to fix up some of our low
hanging
11 matches
Mail list logo
