java api grant setauths
HI, java apihas the grant,setauths class? -- View this message in context: http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/java-api-grant-setauths-tp12609.html Sent from the Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
namespace
HI I created a namespace, but how should use? How to switch the current namespace? Java clientt how to connect to the specified namespace? panqing...@163.com
setauths -s Save only the new permissions？
HI, I'm try use setauths -s command,only save the new permissions? panqing...@163.com
Re: java api grant setauths
See the methods on connector.securityOperations() panqing...@163.com wrote: HI, java apihas the grant,setauths class? -- View this message in context: http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/java-api-grant-setauths-tp12609.html Sent from the Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: setauths -s Save only the new permissions？
Yes, presently that is how setauths works and there is no way to append new authorizations to an existing set. I'll open a ticket about introducing a '-a' option to append new authorizations, but that will be subject to race conditions which might be of concern. panqing...@163.com wrote: > HI, I'm try use setauths -s command,only save the new permissions? > > > > panqing...@163.com
Re: namespace
There is no notion of connecting to a namespace. To "interact" with a namespace, just include the namespace in the table name you provide. For example, to create a table 't' in a namespace 'n', use the table name 'n.t'. panqing...@163.com wrote: HI I created a namespace, but how should use? How to switch the current namespace? Java clientt how to connect to the specified namespace? panqing...@163.com
Re: setauths -s Save only the new permissions？
There is an addauths command in 1.6 and newer. What version are you using? On Dec 17, 2014 7:32 AM, "Josh Elser" wrote: > Yes, presently that is how setauths works and there is no way to append > new authorizations to an existing set. > > I'll open a ticket about introducing a '-a' option to append new > authorizations, but that will be subject to race conditions which might > be of concern. > > panqing...@163.com wrote: > > HI, I'm try use setauths -s command,only save the new permissions? > > > > > > > > panqing...@163.com >
Re: 1.6.2 candidates
I think we could probably put together a non-voting RC0 to start testing with. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Eric Newton wrote: > > We are running 1.6.1 w/patches in production already. I would much rather > have a 1.6.2 official release. > > I may have temporary access to a small cluster (3-ish racks) to run some of > the long running tests on bare metal. > > Testing sooner, rather than later is preferable. > > > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Corey Nolet wrote: > > > > I have cycles to spin the RCs- I wouldn't mind finishing the updates (per > > my notes) of the release documentation as well. > > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Christopher > wrote: > > > > > > I think it'd be good to let somebody else exercise the process a bit, > > but I > > > can make the RCs if nobody else volunteers. My primary concern is that > > > people will have time to test. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Christopher L Tubbs II > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Josh Elser > > wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 There are lots of good bug fixes in 1.6.2 already. > > > > > > > > I can make some time to test, document, etc. Are you volunteering to > > spin > > > > the RCs as well? > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher wrote: > > > > > > > >> I'm thinking we should look at releasing 1.6.2 in January. I'd say > > > sooner, > > > >> but I don't know if people will have time to test if we start > putting > > > >> together RCs this week or next. > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Christopher L Tubbs II > > > >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
Review Request 29176: ACCUMULO-3420 Get Visibility Metrics from PrintInfo
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29176/ --- Review request for accumulo. Bugs: ACCUMULO-3420 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3420 Repository: accumulo Description --- Added an option to PrintInfo to get visibility metrics. Prints the number of times a visibilty is seen in each locality group. Also shows how many blocks in the locality group have his visibiltiy. Diffs - core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/file/rfile/MetricsGatherer.java PRE-CREATION core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/file/rfile/PrintInfo.java 43586dd core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/file/rfile/RFile.java 9dcb3a5 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29176/diff/ Testing --- Tested with a few RFiles that I made. Thanks, Jenna Huston
Re: 1.6.2 candidates
I'll cut one tonight On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Christopher wrote: > > I think we could probably put together a non-voting RC0 to start testing > with. > > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Eric Newton > wrote: > > > > We are running 1.6.1 w/patches in production already. I would much > rather > > have a 1.6.2 official release. > > > > I may have temporary access to a small cluster (3-ish racks) to run some > of > > the long running tests on bare metal. > > > > Testing sooner, rather than later is preferable. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Corey Nolet wrote: > > > > > > I have cycles to spin the RCs- I wouldn't mind finishing the updates > (per > > > my notes) of the release documentation as well. > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Christopher > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I think it'd be good to let somebody else exercise the process a bit, > > > but I > > > > can make the RCs if nobody else volunteers. My primary concern is > that > > > > people will have time to test. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II > > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Josh Elser > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +1 There are lots of good bug fixes in 1.6.2 already. > > > > > > > > > > I can make some time to test, document, etc. Are you volunteering > to > > > spin > > > > > the RCs as well? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I'm thinking we should look at releasing 1.6.2 in January. I'd say > > > > sooner, > > > > >> but I don't know if people will have time to test if we start > > putting > > > > >> together RCs this week or next. > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> Christopher L Tubbs II > > > > >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
JIRA Tickets for 1.6.2 Release
Since we've been discussing cutting an rc0 for testing before we begin the formal release process. I've moved over all the non-blocker tickets from 1.6.2 to 1.6.3 [1]. Many of the tickets that moved haven't been updated since the 1.6.1 release. If there are tickets you feel are necessary for 1.6.2, feel free to move them back and mark them as a blocker [2]. I'd like to get an rc0 out very soon- possibly in the next couple of days. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ACCUMULO%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.6.3 [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20Accumulo%20and%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker%20and%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.6.2%20and%20status%20%3D%20Open
Re: JIRA Tickets for 1.6.2 Release
Because we've agreed on Semver for release versioning, all the JIRAs marked for 1.6.x as something other than "Bug" (or maybe "Task", and "Test") should probably have 1.6.x dropped from their fixVersion. They can/should get addressed in 1.7 and later. Those currently marked for 1.6.x need to be triage'd to determine if they've been labeled correctly, though. It's not that we can't improve internals in a patch release with Semver (so long as we don't alter the API)... but Semver helps focus changes to patch releases on things that fix buggy behavior. I'll do some triage later today (after some sleep) if others haven't gotten to it first. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Corey Nolet wrote: > > Since we've been discussing cutting an rc0 for testing before we begin the > formal release process. I've moved over all the non-blocker tickets from > 1.6.2 to 1.6.3 [1]. Many of the tickets that moved haven't been updated > since the 1.6.1 release. If there are tickets you feel are necessary for > 1.6.2, feel free to move them back and mark them as a blocker [2]. I'd like > to get an rc0 out very soon- possibly in the next couple of days. > > [1] > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ACCUMULO%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.6.3 > > [2] > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20Accumulo%20and%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker%20and%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.6.2%20and%20status%20%3D%20Open >
build.sh script still being used?
I'm working on updating the "Making a Release" page on our website [1] with more detailed instructions on the steps involved. "Create the candidate" section references the build.sh script and I'm contemplating just removing it altogether since it seems like, after quick discussions with a few individuals, maven is mostly being called directly. I don't want to remove this, however, if there are others in the community who still feel it is necessary. The commands that are present in the script are going to be well documented on the page already. Do we need to keep the script around? [1] http://accumulo.apache.org/releasing.html
Re: build.sh script still being used?
I don't see it as adding much value, personally... especially if releasing/building is well-documented. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:01 AM, Corey Nolet wrote: > > I'm working on updating the "Making a Release" page on our website [1] with > more detailed instructions on the steps involved. "Create the candidate" > section references the build.sh script and I'm contemplating just removing > it altogether since it seems like, after quick discussions with a few > individuals, maven is mostly being called directly. I don't want to remove > this, however, if there are others in the community who still feel it is > necessary. > > The commands that are present in the script are going to be well documented > on the page already. Do we need to keep the script around? > > > [1] http://accumulo.apache.org/releasing.html >
