Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/307#issuecomment-218174710
`mvn clean install` runs for me as well and the changes make sense. :)
VOTE +1
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/291#issuecomment-212518731
This looks really good. Simple enough. VOTE +1 from me.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/291#issuecomment-211433503
Hey Mike. Sounds fair enough. I wasn't pointing fingers, just wanted to
understand the thought process a bit better.
Just to explicit w
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/291#issuecomment-211383008
Hey @mike-tr-adamson .
I had a look at [`RFC 4422 section
3.2`](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4422#section-3.2) and it seems to imply
that
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/281#issuecomment-203125761
VOTE +1
I think this is great to have around. It will streamline the workflow.
I also think it will help with travis testing. I know travis
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/271#issuecomment-201937451
Ok I CTRed a fix for this. The following works for me now :
- `mvn clean install -DincludeNeo4j`
- `mvn verify -DskipIntegrationTests=false -pl
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/271#issuecomment-201799767
I had a quick look at this over breakfast this morning. I didn't account
for Neo4J ids to be different from the basic modern ones. I'll CTR
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/271#issuecomment-201694676
Going to look at this today.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/271#issuecomment-200845213
done
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/271#issuecomment-199910099
FYI we're waiting on @spmallette to get some info from the apache folk on
the LICENSE/NOTICE structure for our shaded libs before we merge
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/273#issuecomment-199908876
Cool work guys. This makes a lot of sense functionally. It's a nice bonus
that you caught that issue in the middle of it.
VOTE +1
---
If
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/270#issuecomment-198220280
Just realized I PRed this against master and not tp31. Will close an
re-issue
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and
Github user PommeVerte closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/270
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if
GitHub user PommeVerte opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/270
TINKERPOP-732 - tree() serializing over GraphSON
I've had to upgrade jackson in `gremlin-shaded` to version `2.7.2` for this
fix. I've made the appropriate changes to t
GitHub user PommeVerte opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/271
TINKERPOP-732 .tree() serialization in GraphSON
I've had to upgrade jackson in `gremlin-shaded` to version `2.7.2` for this
fix. I've made the appropriate changes to t
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/268#issuecomment-198614584
This is a good change to have VOTE +1
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/167#issuecomment-161662961
This correctly builds here. I haven't had problems recently so I can't
really tell if this is fixed or not. I suspect that travis will comp
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/157#issuecomment-160604978
This looks simple enough. Lets wait to hear back from @rjbriody but it gets
my VOTE: +1
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/160#issuecomment-160431972
This is a nice change to have. Straightforward enough.
`mvn verify -DskipIntegrationTests=false -pl gremlin-server` passes for me
VOTE: +1
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/158#issuecomment-160427767
Integration tests pass for me. I ran the lower level driver test I have
here and they all passed as well.
VOTE: +1
---
If your project is set
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/156#issuecomment-160421306
This is straightforward enough. Don't know if this needs to go through RTC
but just incase:
VOTE: +1
---
If your project is set up f
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/149#issuecomment-160421094
looks good to me.
VOTE: +1
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/147#issuecomment-160417491
ok, so I wanted to be thorough with this. Hence de delay.
- `mvn clean install` passes
- `mvn verify -DskipIntegrationTests=false -pl gremlin
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/155#issuecomment-159306403
Like that you made it incr by default. VOTE: +1
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/151#issuecomment-158662317
VOTE: +1
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/148#issuecomment-158468321
Fair enough!
As extra info: this build queued for a little under 10mn and executed in
20.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/148#issuecomment-158458126
Apparently INFRA says travis was already set up but there was no hook on
the repo. They just set the hook up again. This has no incidence if the
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/148#issuecomment-158450653
Thanks for all the info Stephen.
>if we just had 1 and 2, i'd be stoked so i think the PR should focus
around nailing those two thi
GitHub user PommeVerte opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/148
initial travis setup
Hey guys,
This isn't so much ready for merge. I just wanted to put it out there for
review and suggestions.
This PR aims at adding travis su
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/145#issuecomment-157719245
Build/tests are good. Note that this doesn't serialize over JSON. I don't
think that should prevent this PR from going through so I'll
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/143#issuecomment-155900613
Straightforward enough, Tests pass VOTE: +1
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/140#issuecomment-155050162
Like the changes. This looks nice.
Tests pass.
Definite +1 from me.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/139#issuecomment-155027459
VOTE: +1
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/138#issuecomment-155027249
I'm really liking the structure here. Thought it was clever to add all of
those tutorials in a row like this. No need for an index.
As f
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/137#issuecomment-155021818
Code looks clean, the documentation reflects all the changes. Look all good
for me.
Tests all pass as well.
VOTE: +1
---
If your
Github user PommeVerte closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/113
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/113#issuecomment-154552506
Ok sorry about the delay with this. It took me some time to wrap my head
around the StandardStructureTestSuit and adding my crappy testing env to that
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/135#issuecomment-154050355
The code looks good and all the tests pass.
VOTE: +1
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/132#issuecomment-153817872
I finally managed to build this... It's a bit of a mystery as to why it
works now, but that's good for me.
VOTE: +1
---
If your project
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/134#issuecomment-153695854
Tests pass for me as well. it all looks clean.
VOTE: +1
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/131#issuecomment-153687899
This looks good. Nice PR to have. `mvn clean install` passes for me. (minus
the weird issues I'm having with spark atm)
VOTE: +1
---
If
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/132#issuecomment-153672244
I couldn't really test this as `mvn clean install` fails for me even on
`master` with : `InputRDDTest.shouldReadFromArbitraryRDD:51 » Illegal
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/132#issuecomment-153295330
Hey, should there be a mention of this somewhere in the documentation or
are javadocs enough in this instance?
---
If your project is set up for it
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/129#issuecomment-153054246
Had another look at this and it looks good to me. Docs, tests and all. Ran
mvn clean install without an issue and also ran verify with integration tests
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/130#issuecomment-152853176
Tested (int. tests too). Everything seems to be working.
+1
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
GitHub user PommeVerte opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/128
TINKERPOP3-935; Added a missing table for the close op of the Sessionâ¦
â¦OpProcessor
issue : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP3-935
Simple case of
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/122#issuecomment-151133769
non-binding +1 here. This resolves client side failing tests.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/121#issuecomment-151126326
I requested the merge against TINKERPOP3-910 (and not master) does this
have to go through a double vote? one here and then in 910?
---
If your
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/121#issuecomment-151122955
dur. It's a slow monday. I've made the change
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on
GitHub user PommeVerte opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/121
added tests around single channel in session and sessionless requests
I added the tests I had around this change. These pass:
```
mvn clean install -DincludeNeo4j
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/113#issuecomment-149890177
Ok that all makes perfect sense (I should have picked up on the
AbstractThreadLocalTransaction), I'll go ahead with those changes.
---
If your pr
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/113#issuecomment-149878701
Done, it was a conflict with the upgrade documentation
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on
GitHub user PommeVerte opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/113
TINKERPOP3-885 Made Transaction.onReadWrite() a ThreadLocal setting
JIRA issue : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP3-885
Both transaction consumers have been
Github user PommeVerte commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/98#issuecomment-144334190
It's worth going through the issue as I've made an arbitrary decision on
the JSON input type and this needs to be reviewed.
---
If your proj
GitHub user PommeVerte opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/98
Made correction to fix TINKERPOP3-855.
This fixes the issue with Json submitted sasl arguments not being in
`byte[]` format.
It is not BC breaking. Tests seem to pass though I
GitHub user PommeVerte opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/79
Added a contributor
As requested by marko.
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/PommeVerte/incubator-tinkerpop
56 matches
Mail list logo
