It's a new attribute, but it's a closed field, which means it isn't backwards compatible. Steven
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Ian Maxon <[email protected]> wrote: > For 1), I guess the question is whether it would be a backwards > compatible change. Since it's just a new attribute (right?...), and it > is also sort of a new feature rather than a fix for something that was > critically broken, I would tend toward putting it on master. If it's > not backwards compatible though maybe it needs more careful > consideration. > > -Ian > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Steven Jacobs <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm implementing a change so that datasets can use datatypes from > alternate > > data verses (previously the type and set had to be from the same > > dataverse). Unfortunately this means another change for Dataset Metadata > > (which will now store the dataverse for its type). > > > > As such, I had a couple of questions: > > > > 1) Should this change be thrown into the release branch, as it is another > > Metadata change? > > > > 2) In implementing this change, I've been looking at the Metadata > secondary > > indexes. I had a discussion with Ildar, and it seems the thread on > Metadata > > secondary indexes being "hacked" has been lost. Is this also something > that > > should get into the release? Is there anyone currently looking at it? > > > > Steven >
