I was using the label “avatica” as short-hand for the “Get Avatica to production quality" initiative. Almost the same as the issues we’d put into the Avatica component, but not quite.
On Mar 23, 2015, at 7:39 PM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote: > Okay, thanks! > > Quick JIRA tip, I've seen other projects use the "component" field to great > affect. It's not a free-form field like label, so it's value is more > reliable. > > -n > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I agree. I’ve tagged these issues “avatica”. >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=labels%20%3D%20avatica >> >> On Mar 23, 2015, at 7:20 PM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think we'll also need to get 626, 636, 637, 639, 640, 641, and 642 in >>> order to have Avatica ready for basic prod deployments. >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm not sure about the other portions of Phoenix. For my efforts on >>>>> PHOENIX-971, I'd like to see these Avatica improvements make it in. >>>> >>>> If by “these improvements” you mean the list in my original email, these >>>> have already been committed to Apache master. So, they’ll definitely be >> in >>>> Calcite 1.2. This includes Avatica issues 618, 638, 630, 627. >>>> >>>> Julian >>>> >>>> >> >>
