potiuk commented on PR #313:
URL: https://github.com/apache/calcite-avatica/pull/313#issuecomment-5132250677
Re-reviewed at `dd8b90c3`. Four of the five landed cleanly:
- **2** — item 7 now carries the exception and the see-also; the two
sections agree on the page.
- **3** — link label fixed.
- **4** — `CVE-2020-13955` dropped, and `CVE-2022-36364` still grounds
its rule. Removing it was the right call over inventing a rule for it.
- **5** — status line gone.
**1 is the one still open**, and I'd argue for one more commit rather
than leaving it. You've answered it here — the Go client is out of
scope — but the answer is in the PR thread, not in the document. The
point of the question was that whoever reads this model in six months
won't have this thread; they'll have a JVM-centric document that says
nothing about the Go client, and a Go-client report will land as
`Model gap` by default. One sentence turns that into a clean
out-of-scope call at the moment it's needed.
Suggested wording, closing the opening paragraph:
> This model covers the Java server and the Java (JDBC) client in this
> repository.
[apache/calcite-avatica-go](https://github.com/apache/calcite-avatica-go)
> is a separate implementation that speaks the same wire protocol; it
> is not covered here and would need its own model.
Happy to push that as a commit on the branch if it's easier — your
call, it's your PR.
Otherwise this is good from my side, and agreed on wanting a second
PMC pair of eyes before merge.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
