You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@accumulo.apache.org by Corey Nolet <cj...@gmail.com> on 2014/06/19 15:09:02 UTC
Time to release 1.6.1?
I'd like to start getting a candidate together if there are no objections.
It looks like we have 65 resolved tickets with a fix version of 1.6.1.
Re: Time to release 1.6.1?
Posted by Corey Nolet <cj...@gmail.com>.
I'm on it. I'll get a more formal vote going after I dig through the jira a
bit and note what's changed.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> Also, we can always have a 1.6.2 if there's outstanding bugfixes to release
> later.
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Eric Newton <er...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 for 1.6.1.
> >
> > There are people testing a recent 1.6 branch at scale (100s of nodes),
> with
> > the intent of pushing it to production.
> >
> > I would rather have a released version in production.
> >
> > Thanks for volunteering. Feel free to contact me if you need a hand with
> > anything.
> >
> > -Eric
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Sure that's fine, Corey. Happy to help coordinate things with you.
> > > *Hopefully* it's not too painful :)
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/10/14, 10:43 AM, Corey Nolet wrote:
> > >
> > >> I had posted this to the mailing list originally after a discussion
> with
> > >> Christopher at the Accumulo Summit hack-a-thon and because I wanted to
> > get
> > >> into the release process to help out.
> > >>
> > >> Josh, I still wouldn't mind getting together 1.6.1 if that's okay with
> > >> you.
> > >> If nothing else, it would get someone else following the procedures
> and
> > >> able to do the release.
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> That's exactly my plan, Christopher. Keith has been the man working
> on
> > a
> > >>> fix for ACCUMULO-1628 which is what I've been spinning on to get
> 1.5.2
> > >>> out
> > >>> the door. I want to spend a little time today looking at his patch to
> > >>> understand the fix and run some tests myself. Hopefully John can
> retest
> > >>> the
> > >>> patch as well since he had an environment that could reproduce the
> bug.
> > >>>
> > >>> Right after we get 1.5.2, I'm happy to work on 1.6.1 as well.
> > >>>
> > >>> - Josh
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 9/10/14, 10:04 AM, Christopher wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Because of ACCUMULO-2988 (upgrade path from 1.4.x --> 1.6.y, y >=
> 1),
> > >>>> I'm
> > >>>> hoping we can revisit this soon. Maybe get 1.5.2 out the door,
> > followed
> > >>>> by
> > >>>> 1.6.1 right away.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
> > >>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Josh Elser <
> josh.elser@gmail.com>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I was thinking the same thing, but I also haven't made any
> strides
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> towards
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> getting 1.5.2 closer to happening (as I said I'd try to do).
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I still lack "physical" resources to do the week-long testing as
> our
> > >>>>>> guidelines currently force us to do. I still think this testing is
> > >>>>>> excessive if we're actually releasing bug-fixes, but it does
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> differentiate
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> us from other communities.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I want to run some CI test because of the changes I made w/
> walog.
> > >>>>> I can
> > >>>>> run the test, but I would like to do that as late as possible.
> Just
> > >>>>> let
> > >>>>> me know when you are thinking of cutting a release.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Also, I would like to get 2827 in for the release.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I'm really not sure how to approach this which is really why I've
> > been
> > >>>>>> stalling on it.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On 6/19/14, 7:18 AM, Mike Drob wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I'd like to see 1.5.2 released first, just in case there are
> > issues
> > >>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> discover during that process that need to be addressed. Also, I
> > think
> > >>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>> would be useful to resolve the discussion surrounding upgrades[1]
> > >>>>>>> before
> > >>>>>>> releasing.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> [1]:
> > >>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/
> > >>>>>>> 201406.mbox/%3CCAGHyZ6LFuwH%3DqGF9JYpitOY9yYDG-
> > >>>>>>> sop9g6iq57VFPQRnzmyNQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Corey Nolet <cj...@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I'd like to start getting a candidate together if there are no
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> objections.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> It looks like we have 65 resolved tickets with a fix version of
> > >>>>>>>> 1.6.1.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> >
>
Re: Time to release 1.6.1?
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
Also, we can always have a 1.6.2 if there's outstanding bugfixes to release
later.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Eric Newton <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for 1.6.1.
>
> There are people testing a recent 1.6 branch at scale (100s of nodes), with
> the intent of pushing it to production.
>
> I would rather have a released version in production.
>
> Thanks for volunteering. Feel free to contact me if you need a hand with
> anything.
>
> -Eric
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sure that's fine, Corey. Happy to help coordinate things with you.
> > *Hopefully* it's not too painful :)
> >
> >
> > On 9/10/14, 10:43 AM, Corey Nolet wrote:
> >
> >> I had posted this to the mailing list originally after a discussion with
> >> Christopher at the Accumulo Summit hack-a-thon and because I wanted to
> get
> >> into the release process to help out.
> >>
> >> Josh, I still wouldn't mind getting together 1.6.1 if that's okay with
> >> you.
> >> If nothing else, it would get someone else following the procedures and
> >> able to do the release.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> That's exactly my plan, Christopher. Keith has been the man working on
> a
> >>> fix for ACCUMULO-1628 which is what I've been spinning on to get 1.5.2
> >>> out
> >>> the door. I want to spend a little time today looking at his patch to
> >>> understand the fix and run some tests myself. Hopefully John can retest
> >>> the
> >>> patch as well since he had an environment that could reproduce the bug.
> >>>
> >>> Right after we get 1.5.2, I'm happy to work on 1.6.1 as well.
> >>>
> >>> - Josh
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 9/10/14, 10:04 AM, Christopher wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Because of ACCUMULO-2988 (upgrade path from 1.4.x --> 1.6.y, y >= 1),
> >>>> I'm
> >>>> hoping we can revisit this soon. Maybe get 1.5.2 out the door,
> followed
> >>>> by
> >>>> 1.6.1 right away.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I was thinking the same thing, but I also haven't made any strides
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> towards
> >>>>>
> >>>>> getting 1.5.2 closer to happening (as I said I'd try to do).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I still lack "physical" resources to do the week-long testing as our
> >>>>>> guidelines currently force us to do. I still think this testing is
> >>>>>> excessive if we're actually releasing bug-fixes, but it does
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> differentiate
> >>>>>
> >>>>> us from other communities.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I want to run some CI test because of the changes I made w/ walog.
> >>>>> I can
> >>>>> run the test, but I would like to do that as late as possible. Just
> >>>>> let
> >>>>> me know when you are thinking of cutting a release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also, I would like to get 2827 in for the release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm really not sure how to approach this which is really why I've
> been
> >>>>>> stalling on it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 6/19/14, 7:18 AM, Mike Drob wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'd like to see 1.5.2 released first, just in case there are
> issues
> >>>>>> we
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> discover during that process that need to be addressed. Also, I
> think
> >>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>> would be useful to resolve the discussion surrounding upgrades[1]
> >>>>>>> before
> >>>>>>> releasing.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [1]:
> >>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/
> >>>>>>> 201406.mbox/%3CCAGHyZ6LFuwH%3DqGF9JYpitOY9yYDG-
> >>>>>>> sop9g6iq57VFPQRnzmyNQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Corey Nolet <cj...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'd like to start getting a candidate together if there are no
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> objections.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It looks like we have 65 resolved tickets with a fix version of
> >>>>>>>> 1.6.1.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
>
Re: Time to release 1.6.1?
Posted by Eric Newton <er...@gmail.com>.
+1 for 1.6.1.
There are people testing a recent 1.6 branch at scale (100s of nodes), with
the intent of pushing it to production.
I would rather have a released version in production.
Thanks for volunteering. Feel free to contact me if you need a hand with
anything.
-Eric
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure that's fine, Corey. Happy to help coordinate things with you.
> *Hopefully* it's not too painful :)
>
>
> On 9/10/14, 10:43 AM, Corey Nolet wrote:
>
>> I had posted this to the mailing list originally after a discussion with
>> Christopher at the Accumulo Summit hack-a-thon and because I wanted to get
>> into the release process to help out.
>>
>> Josh, I still wouldn't mind getting together 1.6.1 if that's okay with
>> you.
>> If nothing else, it would get someone else following the procedures and
>> able to do the release.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> That's exactly my plan, Christopher. Keith has been the man working on a
>>> fix for ACCUMULO-1628 which is what I've been spinning on to get 1.5.2
>>> out
>>> the door. I want to spend a little time today looking at his patch to
>>> understand the fix and run some tests myself. Hopefully John can retest
>>> the
>>> patch as well since he had an environment that could reproduce the bug.
>>>
>>> Right after we get 1.5.2, I'm happy to work on 1.6.1 as well.
>>>
>>> - Josh
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/10/14, 10:04 AM, Christopher wrote:
>>>
>>> Because of ACCUMULO-2988 (upgrade path from 1.4.x --> 1.6.y, y >= 1),
>>>> I'm
>>>> hoping we can revisit this soon. Maybe get 1.5.2 out the door, followed
>>>> by
>>>> 1.6.1 right away.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I was thinking the same thing, but I also haven't made any strides
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> towards
>>>>>
>>>>> getting 1.5.2 closer to happening (as I said I'd try to do).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still lack "physical" resources to do the week-long testing as our
>>>>>> guidelines currently force us to do. I still think this testing is
>>>>>> excessive if we're actually releasing bug-fixes, but it does
>>>>>>
>>>>>> differentiate
>>>>>
>>>>> us from other communities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I want to run some CI test because of the changes I made w/ walog.
>>>>> I can
>>>>> run the test, but I would like to do that as late as possible. Just
>>>>> let
>>>>> me know when you are thinking of cutting a release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I would like to get 2827 in for the release.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm really not sure how to approach this which is really why I've been
>>>>>> stalling on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/19/14, 7:18 AM, Mike Drob wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to see 1.5.2 released first, just in case there are issues
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> discover during that process that need to be addressed. Also, I think
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> would be useful to resolve the discussion surrounding upgrades[1]
>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>> releasing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]:
>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/
>>>>>>> 201406.mbox/%3CCAGHyZ6LFuwH%3DqGF9JYpitOY9yYDG-
>>>>>>> sop9g6iq57VFPQRnzmyNQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Corey Nolet <cj...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like to start getting a candidate together if there are no
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> objections.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It looks like we have 65 resolved tickets with a fix version of
>>>>>>>> 1.6.1.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
Re: Time to release 1.6.1?
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
Sure that's fine, Corey. Happy to help coordinate things with you.
*Hopefully* it's not too painful :)
On 9/10/14, 10:43 AM, Corey Nolet wrote:
> I had posted this to the mailing list originally after a discussion with
> Christopher at the Accumulo Summit hack-a-thon and because I wanted to get
> into the release process to help out.
>
> Josh, I still wouldn't mind getting together 1.6.1 if that's okay with you.
> If nothing else, it would get someone else following the procedures and
> able to do the release.
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That's exactly my plan, Christopher. Keith has been the man working on a
>> fix for ACCUMULO-1628 which is what I've been spinning on to get 1.5.2 out
>> the door. I want to spend a little time today looking at his patch to
>> understand the fix and run some tests myself. Hopefully John can retest the
>> patch as well since he had an environment that could reproduce the bug.
>>
>> Right after we get 1.5.2, I'm happy to work on 1.6.1 as well.
>>
>> - Josh
>>
>>
>> On 9/10/14, 10:04 AM, Christopher wrote:
>>
>>> Because of ACCUMULO-2988 (upgrade path from 1.4.x --> 1.6.y, y >= 1), I'm
>>> hoping we can revisit this soon. Maybe get 1.5.2 out the door, followed by
>>> 1.6.1 right away.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking the same thing, but I also haven't made any strides
>>>>>
>>>> towards
>>>>
>>>>> getting 1.5.2 closer to happening (as I said I'd try to do).
>>>>>
>>>>> I still lack "physical" resources to do the week-long testing as our
>>>>> guidelines currently force us to do. I still think this testing is
>>>>> excessive if we're actually releasing bug-fixes, but it does
>>>>>
>>>> differentiate
>>>>
>>>>> us from other communities.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I want to run some CI test because of the changes I made w/ walog. I can
>>>> run the test, but I would like to do that as late as possible. Just let
>>>> me know when you are thinking of cutting a release.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I would like to get 2827 in for the release.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'm really not sure how to approach this which is really why I've been
>>>>> stalling on it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/19/14, 7:18 AM, Mike Drob wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to see 1.5.2 released first, just in case there are issues we
>>>>>> discover during that process that need to be addressed. Also, I think
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> would be useful to resolve the discussion surrounding upgrades[1]
>>>>>> before
>>>>>> releasing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]:
>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/
>>>>>> 201406.mbox/%3CCAGHyZ6LFuwH%3DqGF9JYpitOY9yYDG-
>>>>>> sop9g6iq57VFPQRnzmyNQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Corey Nolet <cj...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to start getting a candidate together if there are no
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> objections.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It looks like we have 65 resolved tickets with a fix version of 1.6.1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: Time to release 1.6.1?
Posted by Corey Nolet <cj...@gmail.com>.
I had posted this to the mailing list originally after a discussion with
Christopher at the Accumulo Summit hack-a-thon and because I wanted to get
into the release process to help out.
Josh, I still wouldn't mind getting together 1.6.1 if that's okay with you.
If nothing else, it would get someone else following the procedures and
able to do the release.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's exactly my plan, Christopher. Keith has been the man working on a
> fix for ACCUMULO-1628 which is what I've been spinning on to get 1.5.2 out
> the door. I want to spend a little time today looking at his patch to
> understand the fix and run some tests myself. Hopefully John can retest the
> patch as well since he had an environment that could reproduce the bug.
>
> Right after we get 1.5.2, I'm happy to work on 1.6.1 as well.
>
> - Josh
>
>
> On 9/10/14, 10:04 AM, Christopher wrote:
>
>> Because of ACCUMULO-2988 (upgrade path from 1.4.x --> 1.6.y, y >= 1), I'm
>> hoping we can revisit this soon. Maybe get 1.5.2 out the door, followed by
>> 1.6.1 right away.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I was thinking the same thing, but I also haven't made any strides
>>>>
>>> towards
>>>
>>>> getting 1.5.2 closer to happening (as I said I'd try to do).
>>>>
>>>> I still lack "physical" resources to do the week-long testing as our
>>>> guidelines currently force us to do. I still think this testing is
>>>> excessive if we're actually releasing bug-fixes, but it does
>>>>
>>> differentiate
>>>
>>>> us from other communities.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I want to run some CI test because of the changes I made w/ walog. I can
>>> run the test, but I would like to do that as late as possible. Just let
>>> me know when you are thinking of cutting a release.
>>>
>>> Also, I would like to get 2827 in for the release.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm really not sure how to approach this which is really why I've been
>>>> stalling on it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/19/14, 7:18 AM, Mike Drob wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to see 1.5.2 released first, just in case there are issues we
>>>>> discover during that process that need to be addressed. Also, I think
>>>>> it
>>>>> would be useful to resolve the discussion surrounding upgrades[1]
>>>>> before
>>>>> releasing.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]:
>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/
>>>>> 201406.mbox/%3CCAGHyZ6LFuwH%3DqGF9JYpitOY9yYDG-
>>>>> sop9g6iq57VFPQRnzmyNQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Corey Nolet <cj...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to start getting a candidate together if there are no
>>>>>
>>>>>> objections.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks like we have 65 resolved tickets with a fix version of 1.6.1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Time to release 1.6.1?
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
That's exactly my plan, Christopher. Keith has been the man working on a
fix for ACCUMULO-1628 which is what I've been spinning on to get 1.5.2
out the door. I want to spend a little time today looking at his patch
to understand the fix and run some tests myself. Hopefully John can
retest the patch as well since he had an environment that could
reproduce the bug.
Right after we get 1.5.2, I'm happy to work on 1.6.1 as well.
- Josh
On 9/10/14, 10:04 AM, Christopher wrote:
> Because of ACCUMULO-2988 (upgrade path from 1.4.x --> 1.6.y, y >= 1), I'm
> hoping we can revisit this soon. Maybe get 1.5.2 out the door, followed by
> 1.6.1 right away.
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I was thinking the same thing, but I also haven't made any strides
>> towards
>>> getting 1.5.2 closer to happening (as I said I'd try to do).
>>>
>>> I still lack "physical" resources to do the week-long testing as our
>>> guidelines currently force us to do. I still think this testing is
>>> excessive if we're actually releasing bug-fixes, but it does
>> differentiate
>>> us from other communities.
>>>
>>
>> I want to run some CI test because of the changes I made w/ walog. I can
>> run the test, but I would like to do that as late as possible. Just let
>> me know when you are thinking of cutting a release.
>>
>> Also, I would like to get 2827 in for the release.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I'm really not sure how to approach this which is really why I've been
>>> stalling on it.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/19/14, 7:18 AM, Mike Drob wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd like to see 1.5.2 released first, just in case there are issues we
>>>> discover during that process that need to be addressed. Also, I think it
>>>> would be useful to resolve the discussion surrounding upgrades[1] before
>>>> releasing.
>>>>
>>>> [1]:
>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/
>>>> 201406.mbox/%3CCAGHyZ6LFuwH%3DqGF9JYpitOY9yYDG-
>>>> sop9g6iq57VFPQRnzmyNQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Corey Nolet <cj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to start getting a candidate together if there are no
>>>>> objections.
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like we have 65 resolved tickets with a fix version of 1.6.1.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
Re: Time to release 1.6.1?
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
Because of ACCUMULO-2988 (upgrade path from 1.4.x --> 1.6.y, y >= 1), I'm
hoping we can revisit this soon. Maybe get 1.5.2 out the door, followed by
1.6.1 right away.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I was thinking the same thing, but I also haven't made any strides
> towards
> > getting 1.5.2 closer to happening (as I said I'd try to do).
> >
> > I still lack "physical" resources to do the week-long testing as our
> > guidelines currently force us to do. I still think this testing is
> > excessive if we're actually releasing bug-fixes, but it does
> differentiate
> > us from other communities.
> >
>
> I want to run some CI test because of the changes I made w/ walog. I can
> run the test, but I would like to do that as late as possible. Just let
> me know when you are thinking of cutting a release.
>
> Also, I would like to get 2827 in for the release.
>
>
> >
> > I'm really not sure how to approach this which is really why I've been
> > stalling on it.
> >
> >
> > On 6/19/14, 7:18 AM, Mike Drob wrote:
> >
> >> I'd like to see 1.5.2 released first, just in case there are issues we
> >> discover during that process that need to be addressed. Also, I think it
> >> would be useful to resolve the discussion surrounding upgrades[1] before
> >> releasing.
> >>
> >> [1]:
> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/
> >> 201406.mbox/%3CCAGHyZ6LFuwH%3DqGF9JYpitOY9yYDG-
> >> sop9g6iq57VFPQRnzmyNQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Corey Nolet <cj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd like to start getting a candidate together if there are no
> >>> objections.
> >>>
> >>> It looks like we have 65 resolved tickets with a fix version of 1.6.1.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
Re: Time to release 1.6.1?
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was thinking the same thing, but I also haven't made any strides towards
> getting 1.5.2 closer to happening (as I said I'd try to do).
>
> I still lack "physical" resources to do the week-long testing as our
> guidelines currently force us to do. I still think this testing is
> excessive if we're actually releasing bug-fixes, but it does differentiate
> us from other communities.
>
I want to run some CI test because of the changes I made w/ walog. I can
run the test, but I would like to do that as late as possible. Just let
me know when you are thinking of cutting a release.
Also, I would like to get 2827 in for the release.
>
> I'm really not sure how to approach this which is really why I've been
> stalling on it.
>
>
> On 6/19/14, 7:18 AM, Mike Drob wrote:
>
>> I'd like to see 1.5.2 released first, just in case there are issues we
>> discover during that process that need to be addressed. Also, I think it
>> would be useful to resolve the discussion surrounding upgrades[1] before
>> releasing.
>>
>> [1]:
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/
>> 201406.mbox/%3CCAGHyZ6LFuwH%3DqGF9JYpitOY9yYDG-
>> sop9g6iq57VFPQRnzmyNQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Corey Nolet <cj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to start getting a candidate together if there are no
>>> objections.
>>>
>>> It looks like we have 65 resolved tickets with a fix version of 1.6.1.
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Time to release 1.6.1?
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
"I just don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers (or waste my own time) if
it's going to be -1'ed because of insufficient testing."
Yeah, understood. I'm just thinking that it might be good to first propose
new guidelines for a bugfix release, and then release accordingly. If
somebody objects to the looser guidelines (it won't be me), that should
come out in the guidelines proposal, rather than hold up the release.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the below context, I was using the term "guidelines" loosely, not in
> the strictest grammatical sense. I did not see anything on
> http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html that makes me think
> one way or the other.
>
> The general verbage of the page is using a SHOULD context which is usually
> interpreted as a "must". I just don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers (or
> waste my own time) if it's going to be -1'ed because of insufficient
> testing.
>
>
> On 6/19/14, 9:27 AM, Christopher wrote:
>
>> Guidelines don't force anything. By definition, a guideline is a
>> suggestion
>> or recommendation. Even if they were strict requirements, we can agree on
>> different guidelines for bugfix releases. Ultimately, it comes down to
>> whoever has time to create the release plan/release candidate and the
>> results of the vote.
>>
>> I agree with Mike that 1.5.2 should get out first, and that the upgrade
>> discussion should complete first. If we're going to support 1.4->1.6
>> upgrades (and I think that's the direction we're converging on), that
>> should happen in 1.6.1, not later.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I was thinking the same thing, but I also haven't made any strides
>>> towards
>>> getting 1.5.2 closer to happening (as I said I'd try to do).
>>>
>>> I still lack "physical" resources to do the week-long testing as our
>>> guidelines currently force us to do. I still think this testing is
>>> excessive if we're actually releasing bug-fixes, but it does
>>> differentiate
>>> us from other communities.
>>>
>>> I'm really not sure how to approach this which is really why I've been
>>> stalling on it.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/19/14, 7:18 AM, Mike Drob wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd like to see 1.5.2 released first, just in case there are issues we
>>>> discover during that process that need to be addressed. Also, I think it
>>>> would be useful to resolve the discussion surrounding upgrades[1] before
>>>> releasing.
>>>>
>>>> [1]:
>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/
>>>> 201406.mbox/%3CCAGHyZ6LFuwH%3DqGF9JYpitOY9yYDG-
>>>> sop9g6iq57VFPQRnzmyNQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Corey Nolet <cj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to start getting a candidate together if there are no
>>>>
>>>>> objections.
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like we have 65 resolved tickets with a fix version of 1.6.1.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
Re: Time to release 1.6.1?
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
In the below context, I was using the term "guidelines" loosely, not in
the strictest grammatical sense. I did not see anything on
http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html that makes me think
one way or the other.
The general verbage of the page is using a SHOULD context which is
usually interpreted as a "must". I just don't want to ruffle anyone's
feathers (or waste my own time) if it's going to be -1'ed because of
insufficient testing.
On 6/19/14, 9:27 AM, Christopher wrote:
> Guidelines don't force anything. By definition, a guideline is a suggestion
> or recommendation. Even if they were strict requirements, we can agree on
> different guidelines for bugfix releases. Ultimately, it comes down to
> whoever has time to create the release plan/release candidate and the
> results of the vote.
>
> I agree with Mike that 1.5.2 should get out first, and that the upgrade
> discussion should complete first. If we're going to support 1.4->1.6
> upgrades (and I think that's the direction we're converging on), that
> should happen in 1.6.1, not later.
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I was thinking the same thing, but I also haven't made any strides towards
>> getting 1.5.2 closer to happening (as I said I'd try to do).
>>
>> I still lack "physical" resources to do the week-long testing as our
>> guidelines currently force us to do. I still think this testing is
>> excessive if we're actually releasing bug-fixes, but it does differentiate
>> us from other communities.
>>
>> I'm really not sure how to approach this which is really why I've been
>> stalling on it.
>>
>>
>> On 6/19/14, 7:18 AM, Mike Drob wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to see 1.5.2 released first, just in case there are issues we
>>> discover during that process that need to be addressed. Also, I think it
>>> would be useful to resolve the discussion surrounding upgrades[1] before
>>> releasing.
>>>
>>> [1]:
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/
>>> 201406.mbox/%3CCAGHyZ6LFuwH%3DqGF9JYpitOY9yYDG-
>>> sop9g6iq57VFPQRnzmyNQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Corey Nolet <cj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd like to start getting a candidate together if there are no
>>>> objections.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like we have 65 resolved tickets with a fix version of 1.6.1.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: Time to release 1.6.1?
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
Guidelines don't force anything. By definition, a guideline is a suggestion
or recommendation. Even if they were strict requirements, we can agree on
different guidelines for bugfix releases. Ultimately, it comes down to
whoever has time to create the release plan/release candidate and the
results of the vote.
I agree with Mike that 1.5.2 should get out first, and that the upgrade
discussion should complete first. If we're going to support 1.4->1.6
upgrades (and I think that's the direction we're converging on), that
should happen in 1.6.1, not later.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was thinking the same thing, but I also haven't made any strides towards
> getting 1.5.2 closer to happening (as I said I'd try to do).
>
> I still lack "physical" resources to do the week-long testing as our
> guidelines currently force us to do. I still think this testing is
> excessive if we're actually releasing bug-fixes, but it does differentiate
> us from other communities.
>
> I'm really not sure how to approach this which is really why I've been
> stalling on it.
>
>
> On 6/19/14, 7:18 AM, Mike Drob wrote:
>
>> I'd like to see 1.5.2 released first, just in case there are issues we
>> discover during that process that need to be addressed. Also, I think it
>> would be useful to resolve the discussion surrounding upgrades[1] before
>> releasing.
>>
>> [1]:
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/
>> 201406.mbox/%3CCAGHyZ6LFuwH%3DqGF9JYpitOY9yYDG-
>> sop9g6iq57VFPQRnzmyNQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Corey Nolet <cj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to start getting a candidate together if there are no
>>> objections.
>>>
>>> It looks like we have 65 resolved tickets with a fix version of 1.6.1.
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Time to release 1.6.1?
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
I was thinking the same thing, but I also haven't made any strides
towards getting 1.5.2 closer to happening (as I said I'd try to do).
I still lack "physical" resources to do the week-long testing as our
guidelines currently force us to do. I still think this testing is
excessive if we're actually releasing bug-fixes, but it does
differentiate us from other communities.
I'm really not sure how to approach this which is really why I've been
stalling on it.
On 6/19/14, 7:18 AM, Mike Drob wrote:
> I'd like to see 1.5.2 released first, just in case there are issues we
> discover during that process that need to be addressed. Also, I think it
> would be useful to resolve the discussion surrounding upgrades[1] before
> releasing.
>
> [1]:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/201406.mbox/%3CCAGHyZ6LFuwH%3DqGF9JYpitOY9yYDG-sop9g6iq57VFPQRnzmyNQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Corey Nolet <cj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to start getting a candidate together if there are no objections.
>>
>> It looks like we have 65 resolved tickets with a fix version of 1.6.1.
>>
>
Re: Time to release 1.6.1?
Posted by Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com>.
I'd like to see 1.5.2 released first, just in case there are issues we
discover during that process that need to be addressed. Also, I think it
would be useful to resolve the discussion surrounding upgrades[1] before
releasing.
[1]:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/201406.mbox/%3CCAGHyZ6LFuwH%3DqGF9JYpitOY9yYDG-sop9g6iq57VFPQRnzmyNQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Corey Nolet <cj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to start getting a candidate together if there are no objections.
>
> It looks like we have 65 resolved tickets with a fix version of 1.6.1.
>