Congratulations !
Looks great.
*Pulkit Chandra*
*412-641-9176*
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 4:09 AM Ju@N wrote:
> Amazing work, congratulations to everyone involved!
>
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 at 04:14, Udo Kohlmeyer wrote:
>
>> Nice work everyone!!
>>
>>
>>
&
+1 this is a great idea for downstream systems like PCC.
+1 for bom. It's just so much easier
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019, 7:35 PM Jacob Barrett wrote:
> +1 for the change and +1 for BOMs.
>
> We currently have an “all” BOM and a client BOM. Defining server and other
> usecase derived BOMs should be
this
predictability.
*Pulkit Chandra*
Product Team | Pivotal
Cell: 201-509-1957 (Work)
Location: New York City, NY
On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 5:01 PM Michael Stolz wrote:
> +1 on cutting in Nov.
> Seems like community could benefit from one more release this year.
>
> --
> Mike Stolz
>
Have we thought about git hooks as a way to enforce policy
https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Customizing-Git-An-Example-Git-Enforced-Policy
?
*Pulkit Chandra*
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 2:46 PM Alexander Murmann
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> We have a wiki page
> <https://cwiki.apache
As downstream consumers of Geode, we do not want to be exposed to this.
Please revert and fix on develop. Also, could we put a test case to guard
us against this in future?
Thanks,
*Pulkit Chandra*
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 1:07 AM Xiaojian Zhou wrote:
> Yes. The current fix is to let e
For per instance permission, I would say look for the evidence. Do we have
evidence that customers want per instance permission? If not may be
implement minimally in the first cut and validate with customers if they
want per instance model?
About Lucene concern, It is in fact good to provide
