You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@accumulo.apache.org by Corey Nolet <cn...@texeltek.com> on 2013/04/16 04:07:02 UTC
MiniAccumuloCluster backport
I'm working through the back port from 1.5. I've got it running the basic operations that are supported in 1.4, however unless I'm missing something vital, the table classpath feature from 1.5 doesn't seem to be supported.
Since this is a backport feature being rolled into a bug fix version, do you guys think it should be necessary to carry this feature back? I'm thinking no (especially since 1.4.4 is supposed to be mostly a bug fix version) but I want to see what you guys think.
Re: MiniAccumuloCluster backport
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
Ok, thats probably why 1.5 was bumped.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Corey Nolet <cn...@texeltek.com> wrote:
> Keith,
>
> We're using an old version of FileUtils that doesn't have the
> createTempDirectory() method and we're using a version of junit that
> doesn't have the TemporaryDirectory class. I could use the system property
> directly or any other class that we have available but it seems the most
> elegant solution is using a method for doing that directly. Upgrading the
> junit version is the least obtrusive path.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Corey Nolet <cn...@texeltek.com> wrote:
>> > Anyone against bumping the junit version in 1.4.4 to 4.11?
>>
>> I do not see a problem with that, but I am curious why you ask. Is
>> there an issue you are running into? It think we went to the latest
>> version in 1.5 because of an issue we were seeing, but I can not
>> remember what it was.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:40 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Corey Nolet <cn...@texeltek.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>> I'm working through the back port from 1.5. I've got it running the
>> basic operations that are supported in 1.4, however unless I'm missing
>> something vital, the table classpath feature from 1.5 doesn't seem to be
>> supported.
>> >>>
>> >>> Since this is a backport feature being rolled into a bug fix version,
>> do you guys think it should be necessary to carry this feature back? I'm
>> thinking no (especially since 1.4.4 is supposed to be mostly a bug fix
>> version) but I want to see what you guys think.
>> >>
>> >> Right, we would not expect this new feature in 1.4.
>> >>
>> >> I assume you are running into this issue because of a 1.5 unit test?
>> >> If so just remove the unit test.
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Corey Nolet
> Senior Software Engineer
> TexelTek, inc.
> [Office] 301.880.7123
> [Cell] 410-903-2110
Re: MiniAccumuloCluster backport
Posted by Corey Nolet <cn...@texeltek.com>.
Keith,
We're using an old version of FileUtils that doesn't have the
createTempDirectory() method and we're using a version of junit that
doesn't have the TemporaryDirectory class. I could use the system property
directly or any other class that we have available but it seems the most
elegant solution is using a method for doing that directly. Upgrading the
junit version is the least obtrusive path.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Corey Nolet <cn...@texeltek.com> wrote:
> > Anyone against bumping the junit version in 1.4.4 to 4.11?
>
> I do not see a problem with that, but I am curious why you ask. Is
> there an issue you are running into? It think we went to the latest
> version in 1.5 because of an issue we were seeing, but I can not
> remember what it was.
>
> >
> >
> > On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:40 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Corey Nolet <cn...@texeltek.com>
> wrote:
> >>> I'm working through the back port from 1.5. I've got it running the
> basic operations that are supported in 1.4, however unless I'm missing
> something vital, the table classpath feature from 1.5 doesn't seem to be
> supported.
> >>>
> >>> Since this is a backport feature being rolled into a bug fix version,
> do you guys think it should be necessary to carry this feature back? I'm
> thinking no (especially since 1.4.4 is supposed to be mostly a bug fix
> version) but I want to see what you guys think.
> >>
> >> Right, we would not expect this new feature in 1.4.
> >>
> >> I assume you are running into this issue because of a 1.5 unit test?
> >> If so just remove the unit test.
> >
>
--
Corey Nolet
Senior Software Engineer
TexelTek, inc.
[Office] 301.880.7123
[Cell] 410-903-2110
Re: MiniAccumuloCluster backport
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Corey Nolet <cn...@texeltek.com> wrote:
> Anyone against bumping the junit version in 1.4.4 to 4.11?
I do not see a problem with that, but I am curious why you ask. Is
there an issue you are running into? It think we went to the latest
version in 1.5 because of an issue we were seeing, but I can not
remember what it was.
>
>
> On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:40 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Corey Nolet <cn...@texeltek.com> wrote:
>>> I'm working through the back port from 1.5. I've got it running the basic operations that are supported in 1.4, however unless I'm missing something vital, the table classpath feature from 1.5 doesn't seem to be supported.
>>>
>>> Since this is a backport feature being rolled into a bug fix version, do you guys think it should be necessary to carry this feature back? I'm thinking no (especially since 1.4.4 is supposed to be mostly a bug fix version) but I want to see what you guys think.
>>
>> Right, we would not expect this new feature in 1.4.
>>
>> I assume you are running into this issue because of a 1.5 unit test?
>> If so just remove the unit test.
>
Re: MiniAccumuloCluster backport
Posted by Corey Nolet <cn...@texeltek.com>.
Anyone against bumping the junit version in 1.4.4 to 4.11?
On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:40 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Corey Nolet <cn...@texeltek.com> wrote:
>> I'm working through the back port from 1.5. I've got it running the basic operations that are supported in 1.4, however unless I'm missing something vital, the table classpath feature from 1.5 doesn't seem to be supported.
>>
>> Since this is a backport feature being rolled into a bug fix version, do you guys think it should be necessary to carry this feature back? I'm thinking no (especially since 1.4.4 is supposed to be mostly a bug fix version) but I want to see what you guys think.
>
> Right, we would not expect this new feature in 1.4.
>
> I assume you are running into this issue because of a 1.5 unit test?
> If so just remove the unit test.
Re: MiniAccumuloCluster backport
Posted by Corey Nolet <cn...@texeltek.com>.
That's what I wanted to hear. Thanks Keith!
On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:40 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Corey Nolet <cn...@texeltek.com> wrote:
>> I'm working through the back port from 1.5. I've got it running the basic operations that are supported in 1.4, however unless I'm missing something vital, the table classpath feature from 1.5 doesn't seem to be supported.
>>
>> Since this is a backport feature being rolled into a bug fix version, do you guys think it should be necessary to carry this feature back? I'm thinking no (especially since 1.4.4 is supposed to be mostly a bug fix version) but I want to see what you guys think.
>
> Right, we would not expect this new feature in 1.4.
>
> I assume you are running into this issue because of a 1.5 unit test?
> If so just remove the unit test.
Re: MiniAccumuloCluster backport
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Corey Nolet <cn...@texeltek.com> wrote:
> I'm working through the back port from 1.5. I've got it running the basic operations that are supported in 1.4, however unless I'm missing something vital, the table classpath feature from 1.5 doesn't seem to be supported.
>
> Since this is a backport feature being rolled into a bug fix version, do you guys think it should be necessary to carry this feature back? I'm thinking no (especially since 1.4.4 is supposed to be mostly a bug fix version) but I want to see what you guys think.
Right, we would not expect this new feature in 1.4.
I assume you are running into this issue because of a 1.5 unit test?
If so just remove the unit test.