Update on 2.1 progress. Come on Folks, let's Hold The Line. [1] 14 Pull requests in progress. (-7 digression from last week) 1,130 marked as DONE. (+19) https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/3
3 marked as TODO as Compaction follow on work: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/13 2 in progress & 2 TODO for the Single Node ZK follow on work. https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/24 [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htgr3pvBr-I On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 11:25 AM Mike Miller <mmil...@apache.org> wrote: > Update on 2.1 progress. > 7 Pull requests in progress. > 1111 marked as DONE. ( I just missed sending this at 11:11 EST) > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/3 > > 3 marked as TODO as Compaction follow on work: > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/13 > > 2 marked as TODO for the Single Node ZK follow on work. > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/24 > > > > On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 9:38 AM Mike Miller <mmil...@apache.org> wrote: > >> 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. >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> >>>
