|
|
-
Are people ok with putting PIG-3017 into pig 11?
Jonathan Coveney 2012-10-30, 20:36
We have some scripts internally that have come up that are blocked on this,
and I can imagine as other shops continue to heavily use Pig, they may as
well. It seems like an easy, non-invasive change and I already did the
work, but technically we've already branched. I consider it a bug fix,
though, since it can be a show stopper for a data scientist.
Thoughts?
Jon
+
Jonathan Coveney 2012-10-30, 20:36
-
Re: Are people ok with putting PIG-3017 into pig 11?
Julien Le Dem 2012-10-30, 20:40
To me in falls in the category of bug fixes we can add to an existing version.
It is not adding any feature, it is fixing a bug/issue
It is well understood and limited to a specific area of the code.
Julien
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Jonathan Coveney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have some scripts internally that have come up that are blocked on this,
> and I can imagine as other shops continue to heavily use Pig, they may as
> well. It seems like an easy, non-invasive change and I already did the
> work, but technically we've already branched. I consider it a bug fix,
> though, since it can be a show stopper for a data scientist.
>
> Thoughts?
> Jon
+
Julien Le Dem 2012-10-30, 20:40
-
Re: Are people ok with putting PIG-3017 into pig 11?
Rohini Palaniswamy 2012-10-30, 21:02
+1. Agree with Julien. Error on hitting Configuration's size limit is a
bug.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Julien Le Dem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To me in falls in the category of bug fixes we can add to an existing
> version.
> It is not adding any feature, it is fixing a bug/issue
> It is well understood and limited to a specific area of the code.
> Julien
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Jonathan Coveney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > We have some scripts internally that have come up that are blocked on
> this,
> > and I can imagine as other shops continue to heavily use Pig, they may as
> > well. It seems like an easy, non-invasive change and I already did the
> > work, but technically we've already branched. I consider it a bug fix,
> > though, since it can be a show stopper for a data scientist.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > Jon
>
+
Rohini Palaniswamy 2012-10-30, 21:02
-
Re: Are people ok with putting PIG-3017 into pig 11?
Cheolsoo Park 2012-10-30, 21:16
+1
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Rohini Palaniswamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> +1. Agree with Julien. Error on hitting Configuration's size limit is a
> bug.
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Julien Le Dem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > To me in falls in the category of bug fixes we can add to an existing
> > version.
> > It is not adding any feature, it is fixing a bug/issue
> > It is well understood and limited to a specific area of the code.
> > Julien
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Jonathan Coveney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > We have some scripts internally that have come up that are blocked on
> > this,
> > > and I can imagine as other shops continue to heavily use Pig, they may
> as
> > > well. It seems like an easy, non-invasive change and I already did the
> > > work, but technically we've already branched. I consider it a bug fix,
> > > though, since it can be a show stopper for a data scientist.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > > Jon
> >
>
+
Cheolsoo Park 2012-10-30, 21:16
-
Re: Are people ok with putting PIG-3017 into pig 11?
Jon Coveney 2012-10-30, 21:26
Awesome. Next step is a code review :)
On Oct 30, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Cheolsoo Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Rohini Palaniswamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> wrote:
>
>> +1. Agree with Julien. Error on hitting Configuration's size limit is a
>> bug.
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Julien Le Dem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> To me in falls in the category of bug fixes we can add to an existing
>>> version.
>>> It is not adding any feature, it is fixing a bug/issue
>>> It is well understood and limited to a specific area of the code.
>>> Julien
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Jonathan Coveney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> We have some scripts internally that have come up that are blocked on
>>> this,
>>>> and I can imagine as other shops continue to heavily use Pig, they may
>> as
>>>> well. It seems like an easy, non-invasive change and I already did the
>>>> work, but technically we've already branched. I consider it a bug fix,
>>>> though, since it can be a show stopper for a data scientist.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> Jon
>>>
>>
+
Jon Coveney 2012-10-30, 21:26
-
Re: Are people ok with putting PIG-3017 into pig 11?
Russell Jurney 2012-10-31, 03:33
I'll be the +1 :) Russell Jurney http://datasyndrome.comOn Oct 30, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Jon Coveney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Awesome. Next step is a code review :) > > On Oct 30, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Cheolsoo Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Rohini Palaniswamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> wrote: >> >>> +1. Agree with Julien. Error on hitting Configuration's size limit is a >>> bug. >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Julien Le Dem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> To me in falls in the category of bug fixes we can add to an existing >>>> version. >>>> It is not adding any feature, it is fixing a bug/issue >>>> It is well understood and limited to a specific area of the code. >>>> Julien >>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Jonathan Coveney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> We have some scripts internally that have come up that are blocked on >>>> this, >>>>> and I can imagine as other shops continue to heavily use Pig, they may >>> as >>>>> well. It seems like an easy, non-invasive change and I already did the >>>>> work, but technically we've already branched. I consider it a bug fix, >>>>> though, since it can be a show stopper for a data scientist. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> Jon >>>> >>>
+
Russell Jurney 2012-10-31, 03:33
|
|
