I would wait for 3.3.0. I'm a little confused about the versions at the
moment as I thought our minor version 3.2.x should not be breaking (but
that doesn't seem to be the case since 3.2.2 was breaking compared to
3.2.0, though maybe that was a mishap).

Other than that the PR is a really nice one.

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]>
wrote:

> The more I think about this, the more I think I would just prefer to merge
> this on 3.3.0. We open that branch this weekend, so it's not as though
> we're pushing PR out too far. Not sure if that changes anyone's silence on
> this one, but that's what I'm thinking at this point.
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > This is a very neat change I think - our gremlin-server.sh looks pretty
> > legit now. I'd just add one clarification that the proposal here is to
> push
> > this breaking change into the next release of 3.2.3. the question is
> > whether we wait for 3.3.0 which we would presumably start on pretty soon
> > (couple of weeks) to avoid pushing a breaking change into the 3.2.x line.
> > any thoughts on the matter?
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Robert Dale <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> In relation to PR https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/439 , I'm
> >> proposing that gremlin-server.sh will be an init script.  As an init
> >> script, the expectation of not providing any parameters is to display
> >> usage/help:
> >>
> >> Usage: gremlin-server.sh {start|stop|restart|status|console|install
> >> <group> <artifact> <version>|<conf file>}
> >>
> >> This breaks the current usage of starting the server in the foreground
> >> with the default yaml file.  Instead, a user would provide the command
> >> `console`.
> >>
> >> I have tried to keep other backwards compatibility by accepting `-i`
> >> (aka `install`) and a yaml file.  If the yaml file is the only
> >> parameter, the server will continue to start in the foreground.
> >>
> >> If there are no objections, then @spmallette will assume lazy
> >> consensus after 72 hours and do his thing.  I'm guessing.  ;-)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Robert Dale
> >>
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to