accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] ACCUMULO-3176
Date Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:40:46 GMT
As I see it, ACCUMULO-3089 is irrelevant to this vote. That issue may have
motivated the change, but the change is independent and can be considered
independently, but feel free to reference it as needed, since the
discussion did originate there.

Also, I forgot to mention the timeline. The bylaws state a minimum 1 day
vote for code changes. So, this vote will expire at 1800 UTC, tomorrow, 26
Nov 2014. (Although, we may continue resolving vetos to attempt to achieve
consensus after that, I imagine. Yes? This is kind of new territory...)


--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:

> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3089 for those of us who
> need it.
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Committers, this is a consensus vote on whether or not to include Jenna's
> > patch for ACCUMULO-3176 to the 1.7.0-SNAPSHOT (master) branch.
> >
> > This patch improves the table creation API with the introduction of a
> > NewTableConfiguration object (similar to the pattern for
> > BatchWriterConfig), which allows us to be flexible on improving table
> > creation options in the future without creating many overloaded methods
> (as
> > the table creation API has been plagued by in the past). The main goal of
> > the patch is to allow table properties to be set on a table at the time
> of
> > creation, before any tablets are assigned, but it also lays the
> foundation
> > for future table creation improvements. Creating initial table properties
> > was already present in the RPC calls, but not exposed in the API. This
> can
> > support a number of use cases.
> >
> > Since an objection was raised by Sean Busbey (and a veto expected), I've
> > initiated this vote in lieu of applying the patch under lazy consensus so
> > that any veto votes can be justified and addressed here.
> >
> > Note: there are a few bugs in the Mock implementation of this that I've
> > fixed, as well as some minor deprecation warnings and javadoc
> improvements
> > I'm adding, please apply your vote under the assumption that those will
> be
> > fixed before it will be applied.
> >
> > Please vote in accordance with the bylaws for consensus voting.
> > My vote is +1.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
>

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