Yeah, I agree I do not think there is a reason to wait. Its just something to be aware of. Changes to 1.4 will drop off as it becomes more stable. In the past was have seen a good bit of changes between 1.X.0 and 1.X.1, as users find bugs. After that it seems to taper off.
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:10 AM, David Medinets <[email protected]> wrote: > That is an excellent point for which I have no great answer. I can > avoid making changes to the 1.5 code until the 1.4 code is code > complete... but then why have a branch at all? Let's talk about how > the merge happens - which I am ignorant of. Does it happen file by > file or automated with conflicts called out? > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Keith Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >> I am not opposed to this change, just had a comment. One thing to >> consider is merging bug fixes from 1.4. The more trunk is changed, >> the more likely bug fixes in 1.4 will not merge cleanly. This >> increases the chance that something will be lost in translation. >> >> Keith >> >> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 10:52 PM, David Medinets >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> In core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/data/Mutation.java, I >>> see the following code: >>> >>> >>> private List<byte[]> values; >>> private int cachedValLens = -1; >>> >>> long getValueLengths() { >>> if (values == null) >>> return 0; >>> >>> if (cachedValLens == -1) { >>> int tmpCVL = 0; >>> for (byte val[] : values) >>> tmpCVL += val.length; >>> >>> cachedValLens = tmpCVL; >>> } >>> >>> return cachedValLens; >>> >>> } >>> >>> PMD is suggesting that the line: >>> >>> for (byte val[] : values) >>> >>> should be >>> >>> for (byte[] val : values) >>> >>> Is this a useful change?
