> Didn't RFile summaries show up in 1.9 too? (maybe I'm inventing that) I think you are thinking of Sampling, that was released in 1.8.0, showing up in 1.9. I still get them confused. They both are similar and start with S.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 12:03 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks, Mike. > > Didn't RFile summaries show up in 1.9 too? (maybe I'm inventing that) > > On 10/9/18 11:39 AM, Mike Miller wrote: > > I think once we collect all the changes in 2.0 (there are a lot) we will > be > > able to create some bullet points, picking out changes most interesting > to > > users. The new bulk import process Kieth, Mark and I worked on should be > > one. There are many new features that come along with it that weren't > > possible. There was all the work Mike did for usability that he is > > presenting at the summit and wrote a blog post about 2 years ago: > > > https://accumulo.apache.org/blog/2016/11/16/simpler-scripts-and-config.html > > Rfile Summaries was a big change but happened a while ago. Recently, the > > new Crypto service and new AccumuloClient builder are some other features > > that come to mind. > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:05 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Frankly, planning a release without even an idea of what is going into > it > >> seems like a waste of time to me. > >> > >> I didn't ask these questions to try to squash such a release; I don't > think > >> they're particularly difficult to figure out. Just curious what the > release > >> notes would look like (as a user, this is what I would care about). I > don't > >> think I'm alone. > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018, 19:33 Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> I don't know the answers to these questions. I just want to put a > >>> stake in the ground before the Accumulo Summit, so we have a basis for > >>> evaluation and testing, and answering some of these unknowns. > >>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:28 AM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I would like to know what the scope of 2.0 is. Specifically: > >>>> > >>>> * What's new in this 2.0 alpha that people that is driving the > release? > >>>> * Is there anything else expected to land post-alpha/pre-GA? > >>>> > >>>> On 10/6/18 1:36 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > >>>>> yes alphas please. Do we want to talk about expectations on time > >>>>> between alpha releases? What kind of criteria for beta or GA? > >>>>> > >>>>> a *lot* has changed in the 2.0 codebase. > >>>>> On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:45 AM Ed Coleman <d...@etcoleman.com> > >> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +1 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In addition to the reasons stated by Christopher, I think that it > >>> also provides a clearer signal to earlier adopters that the public API > >>> *may* change before the formal release. With a formal release > candidate, > >> I > >>> interpret that it signals that only bug-fixes would occur up and until > >> the > >>> formal release. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> With the length of time that we take between minor and patch > >>> releases, the even longer time that it takes the customer base to > upgrade > >>> and development cost that we have supporting multiple branches, taking > >> some > >>> extra time now to solicit feedback seems prudent. While the specifics > and > >>> implications of semver are clear, sometimes it seems that there is > >>> additional weight and additional perceived risk when changing major > >>> versions, an alpha version preserves our flexibility while still moving > >>> forward. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ed Coleman > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb...@apache.org] > >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 12:28 AM > >>>>>> To: accumulo-dev <dev@accumulo.apache.org> > >>>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Accumulo devs, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm thinking about initiating a vote next week for a 2.0.0-alpha > >>> release, so we can have an official ASF release (albeit without the > usual > >>> stability expectations as a normal release) to be available for the > >>> upcoming Accumulo Summit. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> An alpha version would signal our progress towards 2.0.0 final, > >> serve > >>> as a basis for testing, and give us something to share with a wider > >>> audience to solicit feedback on the API, configuration, and module > >> changes. > >>> Of course, it would still have to meet ASF release requirements... like > >>> licensing and stuff, and it should essentially work (so people can > >> actually > >>> run tests), but in an alpha release, we could tolerate flaws we > wouldn't > >> in > >>> a final release. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ideally, I would have preferred a 2.0.0 final at this point in the > >>> year, but I think it needs more testing. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Does an alpha release next week seem reasonable to you? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Christopher > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >> > > >
