-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
[WIP] Add artifact repository storage capabilities #33
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
Hello, Is there a specific reason it hasn’t been merged yet? Is it still under development? Looking forward to any updates. Thank you for your work! |
|
Dear Francesco, thank you for writing in. You are right, activity became lower on this repository, and it is a bit behind the MLflow releases, because the fluent update process driven by Dependabot had a hiccup, and we haven't been able to dedicate a few cycles to resolve that yet, see #191. We will try to improve on this matter, and will consider integrating this patch on the next development iteration, if it's ready. Thank you for signaling interest about it. Did you have the chance to test it already, if it works well for you? Knowing about that will be tremendously helpful for us to evaluate the situation if that patch would be ready to be included into the next release, or if it will need additional iterations beforehand, to make it ready for prime time. With kind regards, |
Q & A
I can spot in the PR description that an important detail might be missing:
EvaluationThat's of course a significant bummer, so it doesn't make much sense to bring this patch into user testing just yet ;]. I agree it would be a very interesting feature to complete the story of using CrateDB as a unified data store, that's exactly the reason why I was staging this patch here, as I can gradually remember now after refreshing memories a bit. I can't promise anything due to capacity reasons, but sure enough your inquiry sparked my interest to complete this patch. Until then, I am humbly asking for your patience. Of course, contributions are always welcome, and can possibly speed up the process of shipping new features. To all reading who would be interested to see this feature materialize: Please upvote by leaving a 👍 on the canonical ticket GH-195 I've just created. |
Thank you for the update and sorry for the late response. I did not have a chance to try it, however, I will try to get to it as soon as I can. I will let you know the results. Thanks again. |
|
Hi Francesco, please don't worry about delays. Apparently, there is nothing here ready for testing, yet:
|
About
Evaluate whether CrateDB's blob store capabilities with a few additional polyfills can actually yield a reasonable and capable object store implementation.
Details
I wonder if the path hierarchy analyzer can be used sensibly here, as presented by @marijaselakovic at
https://community.crate.io/t/storing-and-querying-hierarchical-data-in-cratedb/1147.