n3101
n3101
@CleWang My sincere apologies for taking more than a year to respond. We will be addressing version upgrades later in the year and will consider your suggestions then. Thanks.
@GCHQDeveloper404 Is this issue still relevant in the light of your v2/maestro changes? I.e. do I close it; push it to after v2.0 or what?
@GCHQDev404 Is this issue still relevant in the light of your v2/maestro changes? I.e. do I close it; push it to after v2.0 or what?
After discussion, it appears this may partly have been covered by the maestro changes, so after those have been merged (alpha-4) test this one again as part of alpha-5 work...
@t92549 For planning purposes - does this depend on any other 2.0 work, or could it be done in parallel if effort becomes available?
@t92549 "This work can be done in isolation from any 2.0 changes. Development stalled though because we couldn't decide how best to implement these fixes. They could be implemented as...
@t92549 "and better explain the side effects" Please contribute something to new docs for this as well. Good news though!
We may not in the end include any NamedOperation changes in 2.0. The question here is whether this item is worth doing and, if it is, whether it has to...
@CleWang Another year older, but I can finally say that we have released Gaffer 2.0 alpha3 which addresses your issue and offers a choice between a default of Accumulo2 &...