Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo >> mail # dev >> Table Namespaces

Copy link to this message
Re: Table Namespaces
I'd love help getting it ready... I've just rebase'd my GitHub copy of
the ACCUMULO-802 branch (/ctubbsii/accumulo) off of asf/master, if you
want to go off that.

Christopher L Tubbs II
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:32 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm concerned about having a partial implementation in 1.6 and then driving
> ourselves crazy trying to fix the API for it in 1.7 because we half assed
> in. In the ticket I think there are 2 items which we need to address before
> bringing it in which would make it awful to fix in future releases do to
> behavior changes. But I don't think they're that bad to fix either.
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ah, I didn't go to the issues last week -- didn't realize that 802 was the
>> namespaces.
>> Have we prioritized what needs to be addressed? Can Christopher get 210
>> done?
>> I feel like we're looking a gift horse in the mouth for not getting 802 to
>> a good state, but I also don't want to get in a position where we have to
>> do a huge revert because we find something terrible with it in testing. I
>> don't know.
>> On 10/23/13 10:00 AM, John Vines wrote:
>>> Christopher brought this up in the code freeze thread last week. My stance
>>> is it shouldn't be merged in until the 1.6 necessities get wrapped. I
>>> don't
>>> have the cycles to give it that TLC though.
>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>  https://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/ACCUMULO-802<https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/ACCUMULO-802>
>>>> <https**://issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/ACCUMULO-802<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-802>
>>>> >
>>>> I noticed that the namespace code that Sean worked on never got finished
>>>> and committed. Reading through the above ticket, it looks like we're
>>>> fairly
>>>> close to a minimum acceptable level of functionality for 1.6 (John sums
>>>> up
>>>> most of these in the most recent comment).
>>>> I'd like to try to get this merged in. What does everyone else think?