Update on 2.1 progress. 10 Pull Requests in progress. 1,097 marked as DONE. https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/3
3 Tickets marked as TODO as Compaction follow on work: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/13 Only 1 Ticket marked as TODO for the ZK follow on work. I thought there would be more here: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/24 On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 7:00 AM Mike Miller <mmil...@apache.org> wrote: > Update on 2.1 progress. For pull requests: > 15 currently in progress. > 32 are open as TODO. But a lot of these will get bumped to the next > version. > 1,025 DONE. Wow! Good work everyone. > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/3 > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 4:55 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > >> After some additional consideration, and getting a better understanding of >> how the code is expected to work from discussing it with Dave... I'm a >> little more inclined to support #2422 in 2.1, provided: >> >> 1. There's time for me to review it, >> 2. It is sufficiently decoupled from the existing code and marked >> experimental, so that we have the flexibility to alter its design, if it >> seems appropriate after it gets some exposure after the release, >> 3. Unit tests and integration tests are reliably passing (as stable as, or >> more stable than, they are currently), >> 4. No serious issues are discovered during review, and >> 5. It doesn't delay a release past early June, as I think this is a >> reasonable target date. >> >> This my wishlist before I can get behind it with a +1 for 2.1. If these >> aren't met, I do not intend to veto, but I'd be a -0 on its inclusion to >> 2.1. Of course, once I review it, my thoughts may change a bit. >> >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 7:07 PM Mike Miller <mmil...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > I think I can finish the FATE refactor PR [1] for 2.1. I had been >> keeping >> > it up to date with the latest in main but stopped because it was too >> much >> > work. I was waiting until the ZK property changes are completed before >> > resolving the latest conflicts. I don't think it is much of a risk. It >> is >> > mostly cleanup and refactoring to remove generics from the serialization >> > code. It will be some work to revisit but I think the risk is pretty >> low. >> > It would allow changing the serialization, which we may be able to get >> into >> > 2.1 as well. >> > >> > [1] https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2475 >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 11:50 AM Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote: >> > >> > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 11:17 AM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > I haven't seen the metrics test fail very often lately. If it's >> > stable, I >> > > > don't mind removing the blocker on that issue, but I'd be reluctant >> to >> > > > close it entirely just yet, until we can verify it doesn't happen >> > > anymore. >> > > > >> > > > As for the original list of potential issues to include, I'm in >> favor >> > of >> > > > trying to get #2197 in. It was started awhile ago, is relatively >> simple >> > > and >> > > > well understood by several of us already... it just needs a bit of >> > > > attention to finalize reviews so it can be merged. >> > > > >> > > > However, I'm reluctant to include #2422, because I don't think it's >> > near >> > > > ready enough, and by the time it is, it will be very last minute, >> and I >> > > > don't want to delay 2.1 further for it. Even if it's included as an >> > > > experimental feature, I think it has huge potential to be >> disruptive, >> > or >> > > to >> > > > have a lot of churn by the time people actually have a chance to >> review >> > > it >> > > > thoroughly. Furthermore, I think there are possible alternatives >> (like >> > a >> > > > fully client-side implementation, based on offline scanners) that >> would >> > > > avoid the tight coupling of a new service to Accumulo's core code. >> This >> > > >> > > There are some advantages to scan servers over direct file access to >> > > consider. One is scalability of computation, if a web server is >> > > serving N client queries with scan servers those can potentially go to >> > > different scan servers. With direct file access, all N queries and >> > > their iterator stacks would have to run in the web server. Another is >> > > scalability of caching/memory. When web servers send queries to scan >> > > servers using a sticky algorithm for assigning tablets to groups of >> > > scan servers, it could lead to good cache utilization and sharing that >> > > may not be possible when running scans directly in the web server. So >> > > scan servers allow scaling cache and computations for queries >> > > independently of web servers in way that may not be possible with >> > > direct file access. >> > > >> > > Another advantage to consider is isolation. With direct file access >> > > and queries running directly in a web server, a bad query could bring >> > > down a web server and lots of unrelated queries. Having a bad query >> > > bring down a scan server may be less disruptive. >> > > >> > > > thread isn't for discussing this in depth, so we can have that >> > discussion >> > > > in a separate thread, but I'm generally opposed to including it this >> > late >> > > > in 2.1's development, given the timing, size and scope, tight >> coupling, >> > > and >> > > > current state. >> > > > >> > > > I don't know enough about #2475 to have a strong opinion, but it >> looks >> > > big, >> > > > and possibly high-risk, given the critical code it touches. It >> > currently >> > > > has a substantial number of conflicts with the main branch. >> However, I >> > > was >> > > > thinking that *some* minimal refactoring (like low-risk automatic >> > > > refactoring, like moving packages) could be done. So, if that's all >> > this >> > > > does, it might be okay. Otherwise, maybe it can be simplified? At >> the >> > > very >> > > > least, I was thinking it would be a good opportunity to move the >> > > > `org.apache.accumulo.fate` packages into an appropriate >> > > > `org.apache.accumulo.core` parent package (some would go to >> > > o.a.a.core.fate >> > > > and others might go to o.a.a.core.util or similar) to keep the >> package >> > > > namespaces standardized, which is helpful to avoid naming collisions >> > and >> > > > jar sealing issues, as well as for less complicated jigsaw module >> > > > definitions in future. Since 2.1 FaTE is already incompatible with >> > prior >> > > > versions, a rename at this time would be less disruptive. >> > > > >> > > > Another task I had wanted to be done for 2.1, before I got >> distracted >> > > > fixing test failures during and after Christmas and trying to work >> > > through >> > > > the singleton manager zookeeper stuff to see what we could simplify. >> > > What I >> > > > had wanted done was to standardize the way we pass table identifiers >> > > (name, >> > > > IDs) across the RPC layer, since we currently do that >> inconsistently. I >> > > > don't remember if there's an existing ticket open for it, but I >> have a >> > > > working branch I had started working out of for it before Christmas. >> > It's >> > > > relatively simple work, and would set us up for some much better >> APIs >> > > going >> > > > forward, as well as help with logging information about table >> actions. >> > If >> > > > necessary, it could be bumped to a future version, but then we'd >> have >> > > more >> > > > churn in the thrift layer. So, I'd prefer to get it for 2.1 to avoid >> > > that. >> > > > >> > > > As for planning, I was thinking early May for a code freeze (except >> bug >> > > > fixes and small improvements found during testing), so we can try to >> > > > release towards the end of May/early June. If we go with that >> timeline, >> > > > that's not a lot of time to wrap up features and have time for >> > > > review/testing, so we may need to be selective about what we hold >> off >> > > until >> > > > the next version, unless we want to further delay 2.1. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 9:13 AM Dave Marion <dmario...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > I think [3] is OBE and can be closed. >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 9:11 AM Mike Miller <mmil...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Yes I agree, that was the goal of this email thread. I found a >> few >> > > more >> > > > > > tickets that should be addressed for the next release. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Ivan - There was some work done on this PR but it has been some >> > > time. Do >> > > > > > you want to take a look at it? Implement a Thread limit. [1] >> > > > > > Keith T - I think we should get this one merged to fix that >> > > consistency >> > > > > > check bug I found. It looks like it is finished. [2] >> > > > > > Dave & Dom - Were you guys able to figure out a fix for the new >> > > external >> > > > > > compaction metrics test? [3] >> > > > > > >> > > > > > FYI we have 6 blockers for 2.1: >> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/labels/blocker >> > > > > > >> > > > > > This is almost definitely going into 2.1 [4]. Thanks Jeff! >> > > > > > >> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/1487 >> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2574 >> > > > > > [3] https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues/2406 >> > > > > > [4] https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2215 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 2:21 PM Dave Marion <dmario...@gmail.com >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I think it would be useful to do some release planning so >> that we >> > > know >> > > > > > what >> > > > > > > features we are working towards and in which release they >> will be >> > > in. >> > > > > > This >> > > > > > > would be helpful for determining what existing PRs need to >> make >> > it >> > > into >> > > > > > > 2.1.0. 2.1.0 is the LTM release, so patches for existing >> features >> > > will >> > > > > be >> > > > > > > backported (2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, etc.) However, as defined in >> > [1], >> > > > > > features >> > > > > > > that don't make it into 2.1.0 will go into the next non-LTM >> > release >> > > > > > (2.2.0) >> > > > > > > and any patches to bugs in those features will go into the >> next >> > > non-LTM >> > > > > > > release after that (2.3.0). >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I'm not trying to hold up the 2.1.0 release by suggesting >> that we >> > > > > perform >> > > > > > > this activity. I'm just asking what the future holds, even if >> > it's >> > > just >> > > > > > one >> > > > > > > feature in the next non-LTM release. My concern is that the >> next >> > > > > release >> > > > > > > will be open-ended and anything not included in 2.1.0 might >> not >> > > get put >> > > > > > > into a release for a very long time. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > [1] >> https://accumulo.apache.org/contributor/versioning.html#LTM >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 11:43 AM Mike Miller < >> mmil...@apache.org >> > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Starting an email chain of things that folks want to finish >> for >> > > 2.1. >> > > > > > Here >> > > > > > > > is what we currently have in the works that are most likely >> > going >> > > > > into >> > > > > > > 2.1: >> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2569 >> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2600 >> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2293 >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Some things that may go into 2.1: >> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2422 >> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2475 >> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2197 >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I created a Project for follow on work to the ZK property >> > > change. I >> > > > > was >> > > > > > > > planning on putting tasks in there that we want to complete >> for >> > > 2.1. >> > > > > > But >> > > > > > > we >> > > > > > > > could also use it for post 2.1 work. >> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/24 >> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues/2469 >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > FYI a draft copy of the release notes has already been on >> the >> > > > > website: >> > > > > > > > https://accumulo.apache.org/release/accumulo-2.1.0/ >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This may be a good thread to discuss whether or not a task >> > needs >> > > to >> > > > > go >> > > > > > > into >> > > > > > > > 2.1 or should wait for the next version. We currently have >> 32 >> > > open >> > > > > pull >> > > > > > > > requests so please email me if there is one that you would >> like >> > > > > > > prioritized >> > > > > > > > for 2.1. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >
