There's a good body of pull requests hanging out there right now. I suppose we (committers) mostly need to pay attention to the ones pointed at tp32. Let's see if we can get some votes in so that we can get these merged in time for code freeze.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Paul A. Jackson <paul.jack...@pb.com> wrote: > OK, that's done, as you can no doubt see. Hoping this can make it into > 3.2.4. > > Thanks. > > -Paul > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Mallette [mailto:spmalle...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 6:13 PM > To: dev@tinkerpop.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.2.4 and 3.1.6 > > sure - please put that in the prefix of the PR title so it links back to > that original jira ticket > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Paul A. Jackson <paul.jack...@pb.com> > wrote: > > > OK, low-risk PR coming for OLTP part. Should I reuse TINKERPOP-1589? > > > > Thanks, > > -Paul > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stephen Mallette [mailto:spmalle...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 5:07 PM > > To: dev@tinkerpop.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.2.4 and 3.1.6 > > > > Being as close as we are to our code freeze/test week, I'd say that > > big, complex or otherwise risky changes probably won't collect too > > many +1 reviews at this point. If the OLTP improvement is > > small/concise (low risk), it could be considered for inclusion in 3.2.4. > > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Paul A. Jackson <paul.jack...@pb.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I have something that fixes OLTP. I haven't worked with OLAP and it > > > looks like the changes for this will be extensive, touching > > > IteratorUtils and so on. > > > > > > Would you be interested in a PR for just the OLTP part? > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Stephen Mallette [mailto:spmalle...@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 3:58 PM > > > To: dev@tinkerpop.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.2.4 and 3.1.6 > > > > > > in his case, it should go to tp32. > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Paul A. Jackson > > > <paul.jack...@pb.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > For what branch should a pull request be submitted? > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Stephen Mallette [mailto:spmalle...@gmail.com] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 3:41 PM > > > > To: dev@tinkerpop.apache.org > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.2.4 and 3.1.6 > > > > > > > > I went with the most obvious implementation place for > > CloseableIterator. > > > > If you see other spots where you could make an argument that it > > > > would make sense to add it then feel free to offer a pull request > > > > and we can get it reviewed. I didn't look into your VertexStep > > > > suggestion too deeply, but a quick review seems to have me > > > > thinking that it would make > > > sense to do that. > > > > Basically anywhere that a step interacts with the structure API > > > > seems like it would be a candidate for CloseableIterator to be > > > > implemented as it is in GraphStep. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Paul A. Jackson > > > > <paul.jack...@pb.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > So, I modified my code to work with CloseableIterator. I was > > > > > hoping this would be honored in more places than it is. > > > > > > > > > > Where it does work is if the user of a traversal calls > > > > > traversal.close() all the steps will get closed, including the > > > > > typically > > > > first GraphStep. > > > > > GraphStep in turn checks whether the iterator that was provided > > > > > by iteratorSupplier implements CloseableIterator and if so, > > > > > closes it, and this is good. > > > > > > > > > > What I was hoping, in addition, though, was when > > > > > VertexStep.flatMap() (or anything else) calls Vertex.vertices() > > > > > or > > > > > Vertex.edges() that before it finishes with the iterator it also > > > > > make the same check for CloseableIterator and call close(). > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > -Paul > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Paul A. Jackson [mailto:paul.jack...@pb.com] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 3:01 PM > > > > > To: dev@tinkerpop.apache.org > > > > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Release 3.2.4 and 3.1.6 > > > > > > > > > > Great. I'll try it out. > > > > > > > > > > -Paul > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Stephen Mallette [mailto:spmalle...@gmail.com] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 2:54 PM > > > > > To: dev@tinkerpop.apache.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.2.4 and 3.1.6 > > > > > > > > > > no - it's in 3.2.4 and merged forward to 3.3.0: > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/blob/e3889bf2401b42c3afbc85e > > > > > ab > > > > > c2 fb c ebf2588974/gremlin-core/src/main/java/org/apache/ > > > > > tinkerpop/gremlin/structure/util/CloseableIterator.java > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Paul A. Jackson > > > > > <paul.jack...@pb.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Is CloseableIterator only in the 3.3 branch? > > > > > > > > > > > > -Paul > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Stephen Mallette [mailto:spmalle...@gmail.com] > > > > > > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 9:58 AM > > > > > > To: dev@tinkerpop.apache.org > > > > > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Release 3.2.4 and 3.1.6 > > > > > > > > > > > > It's been a while since we've had a release (October 2016) and > > > > > > given the importance of the recent critical security fix from > > > > > > Groovy 2.4.8 I think it's worth getting some new versions out > > > > > > there. I'm not sure what everyone is working on or has > > > > > > concerns about, but after the PRs that are out there for tp32 > > > > > > get merged (especially https://github.com/apache/ > > > > > > tinkerpop/pull/541) > > > > > > I don't really have anything else critical for those versions. > > > > > > Please call out any issues that might be important for this > > > > > > release on this > > > > > thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think we should worry about doing a milestone release > > > > > > of > > > > > > 3.3.0 > > > > > yet. > > > > > > I'd like to see some more change go into that branch before we > > > > > > do that, but if others feel differently and would like to > > > > > > offer an argument I'd be open to the idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose we focus on a release of 3.1.6 and 3.2.4 in two > > > > > > weeks time with the code freeze going into place at end of day > > > > > > friday of this week (January 27, 2017). If there are no > > > > > > objections in the next three days (Thursday, January 26, 2017, > > > > > > 10:00am), let's assume lazy consensus and move forward with that > plan. > > > > > > > > > > > > Assuming we do move forward with a release, are there any > > > > > > volunteers for release manager? > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > ________________________________ > >
