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 17:47:43 GMT
For reference, I've uploaded the branch to Apache (
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=accumulo.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/ACCUMULO-3176)
so you can see exactly what code changes we're talking about.


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

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> 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