Good idea - I will make that addendum. I would consider that, ipso facto,
acceptable to everyone on the thread unless they say otherwise -
considering the entire point of this vote is to standardize the diagram
tool, it would be inconsistent with that goal to use the word "should."
"Must" makes
+1 non-binding
I would only prefer that we change "Appropriate architecture diagrams
should be created in" to "Appropriate architecture diagrams must be created
in" but I'm good either way.
- Jon Zeolla
zeo...@gmail.com
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 10:18 AM Michael Miklavcic <
I'm exploring the use of TestContainers right now as part of the HDP 3.1
effort. Still exploring feasibility, but it is looking promising.
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 10:46 AM Justin Leet wrote:
> I think everything Casey mentioned is a good call-out as things start to
> build into specifics. I
Yes, it is free James. We made sure of that in the original discussion.
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 9:33 PM James Sirota wrote:
> i am ok with it as long as we are not forcing people to buy stuff
>
> 02.05.2019, 18:18, "Michael Miklavcic" :
> > Here's the latest discussion on the subject:
> >
>
I didn't get a chance to say so earlier, but Justin, I also like the JUnit
5 extension suggestion. I've gone through some en-masse changes before,
e.g. standardizing the log4j construction idiom, and it honestly wasn't too
bad. Just a thought, it might make sense to kick this off by upgrading
I just want to chime in and say I'm STRONGLY in favor of a docker-based
approach to testing (I specifically like the JUnit 5 extensions
suggestion). I think that forcing a full-dev evaluation for every small PR
is a barrier to entry that I'd like to overcome. I also think that this is
going to
Despite the name, we *have* been using it as both for quite some amount of
time. It *is* both dev and demo, and we recommend it as such on the list
all the time.
So there isn’t a decision to be made here as far as the status quo -> we
use full dev as both dev and demo.
On May 2, 2019 at
+1
On May 2, 2019 at 21:18:21, Michael Miklavcic (michael.miklav...@gmail.com)
wrote:
Here's the latest discussion on the subject:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aa2b0b9ed4a0f0b0d8bb018c618e62de196565f9af71f347e504076@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E
I'd like to propose a vote to change our
NgRx was only used for the aggregation feature and doesn't go beyond that.
I think the way I worded that sentence may have caused confusion. I just
meant we use it to manage more pieces of state within the aggregation
feature than just previous and current state of grouped parsers.
On Fri, May 3,
