As this is a new feature I would be interested in the motivation for
having to backport this. Generally we should only backport fixes for
defects.
As Marcel mentions on the issue a better approach would be to release
this independently. If this is blocked by dependencies we should make an
effort to sort this out, as now is the time in the release cycle for
doing so.
So for now -1 from my side to back porting this until
a) we have a clear picture of the alternatives and
b) in the case of backporting, understand how we would ensure quality.
This is new code that was so far never exposed to the level of testing
people would expect from 1.6 code.
Michael
On 27.03.17 11:21, Raul-Nicolae Hudea wrote:
Hi,
I would like to backport OAK-4933 to 1.6. The impact should be minimal since
the changes are about bringing the AzureBlobStore connector to 1.6.
Changes are:
- new module
- changes in oak-run to support the azure data store
Thanks,
Raul
