accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: ACCUMULO-3177 and ACCUMULO-3178
Date Wed, 26 Nov 2014 20:07:41 GMT
I will be as timely as I can.

Please keep in mind that our community is volunteer based, people have a
multitude of commitments, and it is a holiday week.

I had presumed more feedback wasn't pressing since no one had mentioned on
the tickets how my original concerns were addressed by the revamps. If
someone could give me a summary on each it would make things go much faster.

-- 
Sean
On Nov 26, 2014 12:27 PM, "Christopher" <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> Thank you for your response. I request that you please be timely, as these
> issues have sat idle for a long time, and the maintenance burden of keeping
> them current with the HEAD of master is becoming excessive. I await your
> reviews/objections. Thanks.
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > I will follow up on both of those tickets with my objections, please do
> not
> > apply them.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > My intention is to, sometime this week, take a thorough look at the
> > patches
> > > and reviews available for ACCUMULO-3177 (create a per-table
> > VolumeChooser)
> > > and ACCUMULO-3178 (example implementation of an alternate
> > > VolumeChooser/test case for ACCUMULO-3177). Given the discussions
> > > surrounding ACCUMULO-3176, and because they originated as the overall
> > > ACCUMULO-3089 (which had some objections that may not have been
> > resolved) I
> > > wanted to give this notice, to ensure that there is opportunity for
> > > objections to occur and be discussed here first.
> > >
> > > Presumably, the objections for ACCUMULO-3176 are different from any
> that
> > > might be held for 3177 and 3178, but there was limited follow-up
> > > clarification of the objections raised after the issues were re-scoped
> as
> > > separate, more specific, JIRA sub-tasks. So, I'm not sure there are any
> > > still outstanding for those. Since the reviews are still open for
> those,
> > I
> > > just wanted to invite discussion either here, or (perhaps even better)
> in
> > > the specific review in ReviewBoard.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sean
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message