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
> >
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
I reuse TINKERPOP-1589?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > -Paul
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Stephen Mallette [mailto:spmalle...@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 5:0
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
--
> > 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 s
--
> 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 ot
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
--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
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
wrote:
> For what branch should a pull request be submitted?
>
>
>
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 of
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
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@tinke
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 t
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://
no - it's in 3.2.4 and merged forward to 3.3.0:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/blob/e3889bf2401b42c3afbc85eabc2fbcebf2588974/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
wrote:
> Is CloseableI
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
Thanks, Jason - we can do a hangout and work through it on release day.
that seemed to work well when i did it with ted. You would need to get your
environment setup for release, the important/annoying part being related to
getting keys/gpg stuff all settled. I sorta have this sketched out in some
Stephen, I'd like to volunteer to learn the process for 3.2.4.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Stephen Mallette
wrote:
> Thanks Ted - any takers for 3.2.4? I'd be happy to do it with someone if
> there is interest in learning the process.
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Ted Wilmes wrote
Thanks Ted - any takers for 3.2.4? I'd be happy to do it with someone if
there is interest in learning the process.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Ted Wilmes wrote:
> Code freeze Friday sounds good to me. Yes, I'll be submitting a PR for the
> PathRetractionStrategy bugs (1583 & 1597).
>
> I
Code freeze Friday sounds good to me. Yes, I'll be submitting a PR for the
PathRetractionStrategy bugs (1583 & 1597).
I can take the 3.1.6 release.
--Ted
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Marko Rodriguez
wrote:
> @Ted — Do you think you can fix the PathRetractionStrategy bugs for this
> releas
@Ted — Do you think you can fix the PathRetractionStrategy bugs for this
release, please?
Marko.
http://markorodriguez.com
> On Jan 23, 2017, at 7:57 AM, Stephen Mallette wrote:
>
> It's been a while since we've had a release (October 2016) and given the
> importance of the recent critical
21 matches
Mail list logo
