-- Forwarded message --
From: Chris Lambertus
Date: Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 6:10 PM
Subject: Upcoming Downtime - 8 July, 14 July
To: committers
Cc: ASF Operations , Users
Hello all,
ASF Infra is establishing a Quarterly Preventative Maintenance window which
will commence on 8
SGTM
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Tim Armstrong <
tarmstr...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote:
> Sounds like unique_ptr is preferred then going forward. I updated the wiki
> page.
>
> > Fwiw, I was under the impression from talking with people in the past
> that
> > we were already trying to make
Sounds like unique_ptr is preferred then going forward. I updated the wiki
page.
> Fwiw, I was under the impression from talking with people in the past
that
> we were already trying to make this move, and the
> PartitionedAggregationNode refactor that just went in made the switch to
>
Definitely in favor.
Personally I never found the "this pointer isn't movable" to be a
worthwhile distinction. With unique_ptr you need to pretty explicitly move
it using std::move, so you don't get "accidental" moves like you used to
with std::auto_ptr.
Looking briefly at Kudu we have 129
I suspect we could also make own own immobile_ptr with minimal effort,
thereby both making the difference more visible and reducing boost
dependence.
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 5:17 PM, Sailesh Mukil
wrote:
> I'm in favor.
>
> Since the main distinction is that a unique_ptr is moveable, whereas a
>
I'm in favor.
Since the main distinction is that a unique_ptr is moveable, whereas a
scoped_ptr is not, we should just make sure that we do our due diligence
during code reviews so that we catch those cases.
Also, making a unique_ptr const disallows moving it, since the move
constructor takes a
I'm definitely in favor of using more standard c++ to reduce both confusion
and our reliance on boost, especially as I suspect a lot of people (eg. me)
don't know the subtle difference between scoped_ptr and unique_ptr off the
top of their head anyways.
Fwiw, I was under the impression from
Hi Marcel,
Sorry for the slow response, I was out of the office for a short vacation.
Comments inline:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Marcel Kornacker wrote:
> Responses/comments inline.
>
> Before those, a note about process:
> It looks like the work on this proposal is already underway.
