Github user rjbriody commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/195#issuecomment-201595098
I'll post my comments in the original ticket so it's easier to follow along
if we scrap this PR.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to t
Github user okram commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/195#issuecomment-201594084
@rjbriody --- is this PR still valid? Also, I really think we should keep
all the information in there. I believe (moving forward too) that `explain()`
and `
Github user rjbriody commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/195#issuecomment-190710339
@okram make sure you merge this one first
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/242, as it will be easier to
deal w/ conflicts in this PR.
Github user okram commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/195#issuecomment-190488235
VOTE +1. When this gets merged, I'll handle tweaking it to support the
`Memory`-model in https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/243
---
If your
Github user okram commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/195#issuecomment-170122990
Nothing. We haven't created a 3.2.0 branch yet as we are working on 3.1.1.
We will soon. We can just let this PR sit till then. If it slips through the
crack
Github user rjbriody commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/195#issuecomment-170079709
That's fine.
What does "move this to 3.2.0" actually mean in terms of this PR?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email
Github user okram commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/195#issuecomment-170077823
I would say we move this to 3.2.0. It changes the user experience and if
people are using the Profile object programmatically, it breaks their code.
Github user rjbriody commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/195#issuecomment-170076781
For example, check out the last row in the profile step docs
http://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/3.1.0-incubating/#profile-step
The 'SideEffectCapSte
Github user rjbriody commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/195#issuecomment-170076278
> What about cap(metrics,m)
I do confirm that the size of the cap keys is 1, so the only cap will be
the metrics.
I get what you're sayin
Github user okram commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/195#issuecomment-170075550
Actually, why are we doing this? I don't think we should just rely on
`cap(metrics)` and cut that out. What about `cap(metrics,m)`, etc. I say we
leave this
Github user okram commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/195#issuecomment-170068011
VOTE +1.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this f
GitHub user rjbriody opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/195
Do not include TraversalMetrics cap in profile results.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1078
If the last step in a Traversal that is being profiled is
```cap(T
12 matches
Mail list logo
