Hey all, Are we +1 on this? I think Jakob was the only one who was curious about it.
Cheers, Chris On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Yi Pan <nickpa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Jakob, > > > > > Eh? Not sure what this means... > > > > I mean SAMZA-484 depends on SAMZA-482, and neither are committed. So > Navina > > is having to post Yi's patch, as well as her own, on the JIRA. It makes > it > > really hard to do code reviews because you can't tell whether Yi made the > > changes or Navina did. > > > > > Just to add to the point. It is also difficult to always see a long list of > changed files if the RB request is always based on the master. It is > possible to have RB request based on another RB request (I have tried it > before). But what happens if the base RB request is cancelled/discarded? RB > is not designed to track the revision changes in a dependency chain. > > > > > Cheers, > > Chris > > > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Jakob Homan <jgho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I want to avoid branches, > > > Just curious, any reason for this? > > > > > > > and I also want to avoid revision control over JIRA > > > Eh? Not sure what this means... > > > > > > Thanks, > > > jg > > > > > > On 4 February 2015 at 17:11, Chris Riccomini <criccom...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > Hey all, > > > > > > > > @Jakob, yeah I was thinking we'll follow our normal flow. RTC. I just > > > > wanted to set expectation that the code committed might be not up to > > our > > > > normal quality initially (missing docs, no tests, etc). Until the > > quality > > > > is raised, we should think of this module as experimental. > > > > > > > > @Milinda, awesome! Thanks. :) > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Milinda Pathirage < > > > mpath...@umail.iu.edu> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi Chris, > > > >> > > > >> Hope we no longer need the SQL API. I'll create a RB for Calcite > > > >> integration. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks > > > >> Milinda > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Chris Riccomini < > > criccom...@apache.org> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > I think so. There was some RB downtime, but it just got fixed. Yi, > > > >> Navina, > > > >> > Milinda, can you make sure your JIRAs have up to date RBs? > > > >> > > > > >> > On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM, sriram <sriram....@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > Can we have updated RBs for all the three sub tasks before we > > > commit? > > > >> > This > > > >> > > would help us to review even after we commit. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Chris Riccomini < > > > >> criccom...@apache.org> > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hey all, > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Yi, Navina, and Milinda have been working on SAMZA-390 > > sub-tickets > > > >> > > related > > > >> > > > to SQL operators. We're getting to the point where the amount > of > > > work > > > >> > > > floating around is quite large, and some tickets build off of > > > others. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > I'm proposing that we commit this work into a samza-sql > > submodule > > > on > > > >> > > > master, and treat this module as experimental. I want to avoid > > > >> > branches, > > > >> > > > and I also want to avoid revision control over JIRA. This > means > > > that > > > >> > > there > > > >> > > > will probably be a fair amount of commits/JIRAs on this module > > as > > > we > > > >> > > > iterate, but I think that's OK. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Does this sound good to everyone? > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Cheers, > > > >> > > > Chris > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Milinda Pathirage > > > >> > > > >> PhD Student | Research Assistant > > > >> School of Informatics and Computing | Data to Insight Center > > > >> Indiana University > > > >> > > > >> twitter: milindalakmal > > > >> skype: milinda.pathirage > > > >> blog: http://milinda.pathirage.org > > > >> > > > > > >
