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."
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
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 10:18 AM Michael Miklavcic <
That's awesome, Nick! Looking forward to seeing how this works out.
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 10:06 AM Nick Allen wrote:
> 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
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
I think everything Casey mentioned is a good call-out as things start to
build into specifics. I definitely agree it's a very nontrivial amount of
work, but that lowering the barrier of entry to a lot of PRs eases the
burden on both new and existing contributors by a substantial amount.
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
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
On May 2, 2019 at 21:18:21, Michael Miklavcic (michael.miklav...@gmail.com)
Here's the latest discussion on the subject:
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,
Mail list logo