in his case, it should go to tp32. On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Paul A. Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
> For what branch should a pull request be submitted? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Mallette [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 3:41 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.2.4 and 3.1.6 > > I went with the most obvious implementation place for CloseableIterator. > If you see other spots where you could make an argument that it would make > sense to add it then feel free to offer a pull request and we can get it > reviewed. I didn't look into your VertexStep suggestion too deeply, but a > quick review seems to have me thinking that it would make sense to do that. > Basically anywhere that a step interacts with the structure API seems like > it would be a candidate for CloseableIterator to be implemented as it is in > GraphStep. > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Paul A. Jackson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > So, I modified my code to work with CloseableIterator. I was hoping > > this would be honored in more places than it is. > > > > Where it does work is if the user of a traversal calls > > traversal.close() all the steps will get closed, including the typically > first GraphStep. > > GraphStep in turn checks whether the iterator that was provided by > > iteratorSupplier implements CloseableIterator and if so, closes it, > > and this is good. > > > > What I was hoping, in addition, though, was when VertexStep.flatMap() > > (or anything else) calls Vertex.vertices() or Vertex.edges() that > > before it finishes with the iterator it also make the same check for > > CloseableIterator and call close(). > > > > Thoughts? > > > > -Paul > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul A. Jackson [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 3:01 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Release 3.2.4 and 3.1.6 > > > > Great. I'll try it out. > > > > -Paul > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stephen Mallette [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 2:54 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.2.4 and 3.1.6 > > > > no - it's in 3.2.4 and merged forward to 3.3.0: > > > > https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/blob/e3889bf2401b42c3afbc85eabc2fb > > c ebf2588974/gremlin-core/src/main/java/org/apache/ > > tinkerpop/gremlin/structure/util/CloseableIterator.java > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Paul A. Jackson <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Is CloseableIterator only in the 3.3 branch? > > > > > > -Paul > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Stephen Mallette [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 9:58 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Release 3.2.4 and 3.1.6 > > > > > > It's been a while since we've had a release (October 2016) and given > > > the importance of the recent critical security fix from Groovy 2.4.8 > > > I think it's worth getting some new versions out there. I'm not sure > > > what everyone is working on or has concerns about, but after the PRs > > > that are out there for tp32 get merged (especially > > > https://github.com/apache/ > > > tinkerpop/pull/541) > > > I don't really have anything else critical for those versions. > > > Please call out any issues that might be important for this release > > > on this > > thread. > > > > > > I don't think we should worry about doing a milestone release of > > > 3.3.0 > > yet. > > > I'd like to see some more change go into that branch before we do > > > that, but if others feel differently and would like to offer an > > > argument I'd be open to the idea. > > > > > > I propose we focus on a release of 3.1.6 and 3.2.4 in two weeks time > > > with the code freeze going into place at end of day friday of this > > > week (January 27, 2017). If there are no objections in the next > > > three days (Thursday, January 26, 2017, 10:00am), let's assume lazy > > > consensus and move forward with that plan. > > > > > > Assuming we do move forward with a release, are there any volunteers > > > for release manager? > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > ________________________________ > >
