n3101

@GCHQDev404 "but better suited to individual store implementations." So should there be separate issues to: 1. add a group to a schema used by an accumulo store 2. add a...

We believe this is a bug. On discussion with @GCHQDev404 it appears that this is no longer blocking completion of #2457 so it can stay on the post-2.0 backlog.

@GCHQDeveloper314 How big a piece of work is this?

There is a small group of named operation things to do in v2.0. Address this then.

After discussion offline, this small change would be quick to implement, so include in alpha-3 release.

@p013570 and what is the status of this one?

Would this be a non-backwardly compatible change, i.e. for Gaffer 2.0?

"It probably wouldn't be backwards compatible" - errh, you mean it is v2.0? The rest of your reply implies you mean it would be backwardly compatible

@GCHQDev404 Is this a Gaffer 2.0 breaking change?

See https://github.com/gchq/gaffer-tools/tree/develop/random-element-generation and https://github.com/gchq/gaffer-tools/tree/develop/performance-testing which may-or-may-not work or be relevant.