i was about to write pretty much the same thing :-) regards angela
On 28/03/17 09:09, "Michael Dürig" <[email protected]> wrote: > >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 >> >>
