trafodion-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sandhya Sundaresan <sandhya.sundare...@esgyn.com>
Subject RE: https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafodion/pull/367 (JIRA TRAFODION-1706)
Date Fri, 01 Apr 2016 00:55:02 GMT
I guess it's too late to vote -1 on this :-) I had left a comment in GIT for
this PR  to see the results of the full run too.

I think it's fine to make some exceptions, like in this case due to
schedule, but in general it should have been as easy to resolve any issues
(if any)  BEFORE the pull request was made. The tests are easy to run and we
have enough machines to run them as well.  So hopefully this isn't going to
become a trend.

Thanks
Sandhya

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Birdsall [mailto:dave.birdsall@esgyn.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 3:16 PM
To: dev@trafodion.incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafodion/pull/367 (JIRA
TRAFODION-1706)

And it is now merged....

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Birdsall [mailto:dave.birdsall@esgyn.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 3:10 PM
To: 'dev@trafodion.incubator.apache.org'
<dev@trafodion.incubator.apache.org>
Subject: RE: https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafodion/pull/367 (JIRA
TRAFODION-1706)

Hi all,

Having heard no objection, I am going to merge this now.

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Varnau [mailto:steve.varnau@esgyn.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 10:47 AM
To: dev@trafodion.incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafodion/pull/367 (JIRA
TRAFODION-1706)

Yes, I'd like to get this merged in (along with PR397, needed for 2.0).

--Steve


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Birdsall [mailto:dave.birdsall@esgyn.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 9:59 AM
> To: dev@trafodion.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafodion/pull/367 (JIRA
> TRAFODION-1706)
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Just wanted to check with the community: Are we ready to merge this
> change yet?
>
>
>
> There was mention in another e-mail thread about running full
> regressions before merging this change. I’m happy to do this as part
> of the committing process. I do have a concern, though. I’m not an
> expert in the areas changed, and if there are regression failures, it
> might take some time for me to debug them. Would it be faster to
> simply merge the changes (as we usually do now), so that regression
> failures are visible to the whole community?
>
>
>
> Dave

Mime
View raw message