There is a way it could be done that'd be backwards compatible, I think.
Without careful thought, here's how that might look:
- One could make it officially optional (not predeclared, aka "closed).
- One could then make the semantics be that a type name's dataverse is
either taken from there or presumed to be the same as dataset's
dataverse if it's absent.
Would some fixed-up version of that work?
(It would clearly be cleaner long-term to NOT make it optional and to
migrate existing metadata if we had any to have the new fully-qualified
info based on the above semantics. The question is - when do we cross
that line where backward compatibility trumps - sorry to use that word
:-) - cleanliness. @All: Thoughts?)
On 12/14/15 11:16 AM, Steven Jacobs wrote:
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
