Does it compile against 2.X? If so I would prefer to have it go there, and
then possibly 1.x if people what it there too. - Bobby
On Monday, September 26, 2016 12:47 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The IP Clearance vote has passed and we are now able to import the SQE code.
The question now is to where do we want to import the code?
My inclination is to import it to “external” in the 1.x branch. It can be
ported to other branches as necessary/if desired. An alternative would be to
treat it as a feature branch, but I’d rather take the former approach.
Thought/opinions?
-Taylor
> On Sep 21, 2016, at 8:39 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My apologies. I meant to cc dev@, but didn't. Will forward in a bit...
>
> The vote (lazy consensus) is underway on general@incubator, and will close in
> less than 72 hours. After that the code can be merged.
>
> -Taylor
>
>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 7:02 PM, Jungtaek Lim <kabh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi dev,
>>
>> While code contribution of SQE is in progress, I would like to continue
>> discussion how to merge SQE and Storm SQL.
>>
>> I did an analysis of merging SQE and Storm SQL in both side, integrating
>> SQE to Storm SQL and vice versa.
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/STORM/Technical+analysis+of+merging+SQE+and+Storm+SQL
>>
>> As I commented to that page, since I'm working on Storm SQL for some weeks
>> I can be (heavily) biased. So I'd really appreciated if someone can do
>> another analysis.
>>
>> Please feel free to share your thought about this analysis, or another
>> proposal if you have any, or other things about the merging.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
