Re: [DISCUSS] including shaded artifacts in the convenience binary
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Mike Drob <mdrob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Are the two issues (HBASE-20615 and HBASE-19735) conflicting, redundant, or
I think they're orthogonal, at least as they stand. I think the fact
that HBASE-19735 doesn't e.g. remove the shell from the main tarball
is a good way to illustrate that inclusion in one doesn't obviate the
possibility of inclusion in the other.
That said, if HBASE-19735 lands then we could adapt the testing I'm
getting in place as a part of HBASE-20331 to check that the generated
artifact works as expected. If both landed then I'd probably want to
test both using the same test.
> If we have a minimal client tarball that includes the shaded client and
> shaded mapreduce modules (and nothing else?) then are we good to go?
I think if we have a client tarball that includes the shaded client
modules (and other things they need like logging jars) then we can
make a go of things. I think Josh's current plan to also include the
shell in the tarball is a good idea.
I don't know if practically speaking this will just mean we end up
making everyone install two tarballs instead of one. We could always
push forward with it and then revisit the issue as we get feedback.