How do we want to EOL 1.5?
Personally, I was thinking (soon after 1.7.0 is released):
* Release and tag 1.5.3
* Remove 1.5 branch to focus active development on newer versions
* Be willing to branch from the 1.5.3 tag to rapidly release a 1.5.4
in response to critical bugs
My biggest concerns
I'd like to think about releasing 1.5.3 and 1.6.3, since there are 75
and 82 commits in those branches, presumably fixing a lot of bugs.
Is anybody willing to act as release manager for either of these and
prepare the RCs? Perhaps somebody who hasn't already done some
releases who wants to try?
Agree - 1.6.3 would be good to ship. Discuss on EOL 1.5 would be good to
entertain. It's about that time.
Sean Busbey wrote:
let's please have a labeled [DISCUSS] thread on when and how to EOL 1.5.
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Christopherctubb...@apache.org wrote:
And, whether or not
let's please have a labeled [DISCUSS] thread on when and how to EOL 1.5.
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote:
And, whether or not we release 1.5.3, I do think we should consider
closing out development on that branch after 1.7.0 is released.
Anybody have
Sure, we can discuss that separately. I'll start a new thread.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey bus...@cloudera.com wrote:
let's please have a labeled [DISCUSS] thread on when and how to EOL 1.5.
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:55
JDK version uses more memory, maybe?
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:22 AM, Josh Elser josh.el...@gmail.com wrote:
If you've been keeping a keen eye, you might have noticed that emails for
1.7 and master ITs have stopped coming in from me.
The SHA1 seems incorrect. The jars says they were built on
8cba8128fbc3238bdd9398cf5c36b7cb6dc3b61d, which I can't find in the RC
branch.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Josh Elser josh.el...@gmail.com wrote:
Devs,
Please consider the
Feel free to include user@ sooner, if you wish. The reason I hadn't
already was because my suggested route would only be a shift in
development procedures, and wouldn't really change things from a user
perspective. Alternatives to what I suggest may affect them more
strongly. We definitely should
I thought I did push a tag..
https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=accumulo.git;a=commit;h=8cba8128fbc3238bdd9398cf5c36b7cb6dc3b61d
Christopher wrote:
Cool. Can you push an rc branch (or tag) containing this commit, so I
can verify it matches the src.tar.gz? Thanks!
--
Christopher L
I'm not aware of any efforts in this area, sadly.
Revan1988 wrote:
Hi,
I'm working with Accumulo to store a large data from an IDS (suricata).
I have developed an app that scan a json file for new insert and store it
into Accumulo.
Now I'm looking for a UI (like Kibana or Prelude) that can be
You are correct. I forgot to update the SHA when I copied the contents.
The correct SHA1=8cba8128fbc3238bdd9398cf5c36b7cb6dc3b61d
Christopher wrote:
The SHA1 seems incorrect. The jars says they were built on
8cba8128fbc3238bdd9398cf5c36b7cb6dc3b61d, which I can't find in the RC
branch.
--
Devs,
Please consider the following candidate for Apache Accumulo 1.7.0
Tag: 1.7.0-rc3
SHA1: 76634fb2f1257abbb8ef745ea67a4f78e733a402
Staging Repository:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1032
Source tarball:
oh! almost forgot. We should get user@accumulo into this conversation
sooner rather than later. I'm not sure if it's better ot just copy them in
to this thread or do it as a follow up once we have more of an idea of what
EOL means for them.
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Sean Busbey
I can get a 1.6.3 together.
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote:
Sure, we can discuss that separately. I'll start a new thread.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Sean Busbey bus...@cloudera.com
Cool. Can you push an rc branch (or tag) containing this commit, so I
can verify it matches the src.tar.gz? Thanks!
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Josh Elser josh.el...@gmail.com wrote:
You are correct. I forgot to update the SHA when I
+1 to making sure we have a 1.5.3 before stop dev
I'd like to make sure we get through some testing of 1.5 - 1.7 upgrade
testing before declaring dev over, just to give people more assurance that
they can upgrade off of the version.
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Christopher
that change to development procedure will definitely impact them. it'll
mean folks no longer look for their bugs to impact the 1.5 branch to start
(unless things are critical). that basically guarantees that the rate of
1.5 releases will slow, which impacts ops planning for those on the 1.5
line.
Github user tanadeau commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/29#issuecomment-101419071
My use case didn't end up needing any new public APIs so, per earlier
discussion, I'm going to move the code from the public API classes to the *Impl
classes.
---
24hr RW on 3 nodes w/ agitation just finished positively.
Josh Elser wrote:
Testing: All unit and integration tests are passing. Completed 3-day CI
w/o agitation or verification. Completed 24hr RandomWalk w/o agitation
on 3 nodes. 95% through 24hr CI and RW w/ agitation.
Weird. I see the email, but my git client can't pull it for some reason.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Josh Elser josh.el...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought I did push a tag..
Github user joshelser commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/29#issuecomment-101423939
Cool beans, thanks for the update @tanadeau. Will watch for new changes.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear
Yeah, that worked. I was using `git remote update` which seemed to
download all the other tags... but not these new ones. SMH: I dunno.
Thanks.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Josh Elser josh.el...@gmail.com wrote:
git fetch --tags?
1.5 has already started to suffer in terms of landing every bug-fix
there. I don't think it's intentional (I know I have done it though),
but it's kind of a sign that the devs have already mentally move beyond 1.5.
I think JIRA is a clear sign that users aren't heavily using 1.5 (I
can't
That is, unless any of the new committers would like to take it on- in that
case, I can help ;-)
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Corey Nolet cjno...@gmail.com wrote:
I can get a 1.6.3 together.
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote:
Sure, we can discuss
Github user tanadeau commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/29#issuecomment-101438449
I think this PR should be good to go unless there are more comments.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on
That should read that could be a good thing (rather than that's a
good thing... I don't know which procedure is better).
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote:
The rate is already slow, but I understand
24hr CI just verified
org.apache.accumulo.test.continuous.ContinuousVerify$Counts
REFERENCED=5754999773
UNREFERENCED=6000227
Josh Elser wrote:
24hr RW on 3 nodes w/ agitation just finished positively.
Josh Elser wrote:
Testing: All unit and integration tests are passing. Completed
-1 because of ACCUMULO-3801
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3801
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Josh Elser josh.el...@gmail.com wrote:
Devs,
Please consider the following candidate for Apache Accumulo 1.7.0
Tag: 1.7.0-rc2
SHA1: 76634fb2f1257abbb8ef745ea67a4f78e733a402
Github user joshelser commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/29#discussion_r30200397
--- Diff:
minicluster/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/minicluster/MiniAccumuloRunner.java
---
@@ -75,6 +75,7 @@
private static final String
Github user joshelser commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/29#discussion_r30200417
--- Diff:
minicluster/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/minicluster/impl/MiniAccumuloConfigImpl.java
---
@@ -313,6 +321,19 @@ public
I noticed in the compat report that no decode method was added for
ReverseLexicoder. I am thinking this was intentional and we are ok because
its return type is generic?
ReverseLexicoderT.decode ( byte[ ] data ) *:* T
Are we ok just dropping all of the mapreduce.util stuff?
On Tue, May 12,
Keith Turner wrote:
I noticed in the compat report that no decode method was added for
ReverseLexicoder. I am thinking this was intentional and we are ok because
its return type is generic?
ReverseLexicoderT.decode ( byte[ ] data ) *:* T
Precisely, there was no parameterized method other
As soon as you make a change, I'll be re-rolling the RC.
Keith Turner wrote:
-1 because of ACCUMULO-3801
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3801
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Josh Elserjosh.el...@gmail.com wrote:
Devs,
Please consider the following candidate for Apache
33 matches
Mail list logo
