Forgot to mention: Marko and I are still trying to fix some SparkGraphComputer issues (I don't think there're open tickets for the stuff we're doing).
Cheers, Daniel On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:02 AM, Daniel Kuppitz <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think I get the script things done (TINKERPOP-927 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-927> and TINKERPOP-986 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-986>). I'm waiting for > feedback from Michael for TINKERPOP-939 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-939> (not much > confidence here either). > TINKERPOP-943 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-943> has > an open PR (simple stuff, will def. make it into 3.1.1). > TINKERPOP-818 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-818> > should be easy, chances are high that you'll see a PR in the coming days. > > Cheers, > Daniel > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> We have the rest of this week to hack away until code freeze arrives next >> Monday, January 25th 2016. As it stands we have a handful of items >> remaining - some are already in pull requests awaiting review. >> >> Anyone foresee any troubles getting their bits done in time for code >> freeze? >> >> We also have these open issues which are unassigned to anyone: >> >> + Develop a less error prone way for rewriting strategies - >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-882 - don't imagine we >> will >> make this happen. >> + Graph Configuration Class - >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-659 >> + StructureStandardTestSuite has file I/O issues on Windows >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1041 - Jason, sorry to >> make >> you "Windows guy" on this one, but is this one you can easily solve? >> + Validate dependency grabs that have TinkerPop dependencies - >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-893 - this was >> low-hanging >> fruit that we thought someone in the community might pick up - we can >> probably push that off to another version. >> >> Comments? >> > >
