do the referenced ITs still fail? IIRC, passing ITs is part of our release criteria.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Michael Wall <mjw...@gmail.com> wrote: > I just moved the last 2 tickets out of 1.8.0. Both tickets were for > failing ITs. Seems like we are ready now for the release. Anyone disagree? > > I plan on making an RC tomorrow. I'll start with a RC0 to work out the > process then make an RC1 if that goes smoothly. > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Michael Wall <mjw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Didn't get a chance to talk to Christopher so hopefully what I understood >> > from emails with Josh and him is correct. >> > >> > Moved issues out of 1.8.0. Here is a summary of the fix version changes >> > >> > 8 issues - 1.7.2, 1.8.0 => 1.7.2, 1.8.1 >> > 9 issues - 1.6.6, 1.7.3, 1.8.0 => 1.6.6, 1.7.3, 1.8.1 >> > 34 issues - 1.7.3, 1.8.0 => 1.7.3, 1.8.1 >> > 102 issues (BUG) - 1.8.0 => 1.8.1 >> > 248 issues (not BUG) - 1.8.0 => 1.9.1 >> > >> > That leaves 3 issues in 1.8.0, I made them blockers >> > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4157 (WAL can be >> > prematurely deleted) >> > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4165 (Create a user >> level >> > API for RFile) >> > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1124 (optimize index >> size >> > in RFile) >> > >> > Keith has a PR in for 1124. I am looking to put in a PR for 4157 >> > tomorrow/Sat. Keith, if I need to move 4165 to 1.8.1 let me know. >> > >> >> 1124 is merged. 4165 has a PR. I also created a PR for 4318[1]. While >> testing the new RFile API I tried to use try-with-resources with a scanner >> and found I could not. I think it would be nice to get 4318 into 1.8.0 >> because its a change that can only be made on a minor release. >> >> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO- >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4165>4318 >> >> >> >> > >> > Once those are closed/moved, I will cut an RC1. >> > >> > Mike >> > >> > >> > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Michael Wall <mjw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Christopher, >> > > >> > > I'd like to talk this through with you before I move the tickets to >> make >> > > sure I understand what you are saying here. >> > > >> > > Thanks for the note, it is helpful. >> > > >> > > Mike >> > > >> > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > >> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 9:42 PM Michael Wall <mjw...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > After last weeks discussion with Josh, Christopher and others at the >> > >> > Accumulo Working Day, I am going to shepherd the 1.8 release. First >> > >> step >> > >> > is to create a release candidate? Before I do that, are there any >> > >> tickets >> > >> > that need to get into the release? I know Keith mentioned 1 or 2 >> and >> > I >> > >> > have one I'd like to finish. >> > >> > >> > >> > Here is what Jira says is unresolved, >> > >> > https://s.apache.org/accumulo-1.8-unresolved >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed I would like to move all tickets not identified for the 1.8 >> > >> release >> > >> > to 2.0. Then on Friday I would like to cut the first release >> > candidate >> > >> for >> > >> > 1.8. Is that enough time? Anything I am missing? >> > >> > >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > >> > >> > Mike >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> I think it's probably time. I don't know that I'd bump the stuff to >> 2.0. >> > >> I'd rather bump it to 1.9, just because we've been on a roll with this >> > >> backwards compatibility thing, and I think there's probably ongoing >> > demand >> > >> for updated 1.x versions. >> > >> >> > >> I'll try to go through the issues I've created (or have assigned to >> me) >> > >> and >> > >> bump them myself. So, if you could hold off on that for a few more >> days, >> > >> it >> > >> would help. >> > >> >> > >> Also, keep in mind, if you do bump using JIRAs batch features, you've >> > got >> > >> to do it multiple times, depending on if they have more than one >> > >> fixVersion >> > >> on them, otherwise you'll overwrite the multiple versions with a >> single >> > >> one >> > >> (or vice versa). >> > >> >> > >> Eg. >> > >> (1.6.6, 1.7.2, 1.8.0) -> (1.6.6, 1.7.2, 1.8.1) // should just be bug >> > fixes >> > >> (1.7.2, 1.8.0) -> (1.7.2, 1.8.1) // should just be bug fixes >> > >> (1.8.0) -> (1.8.1 or 1.9.0) // depends on if bugfix or feature >> addition >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> -- busbey
