Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1

[Corey Nolet]

I'll add this to my docs for bugfix releases- thanks!

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Sean Busbey  wrote:

> Josh is correct, I used Java ACC.
>
> Our instructions are still present: *http://s.apache.org/ZrV
> *
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Josh Elser  wrote:
>
> > I think we used to have instruction lying around that described how to
> use
> > https://github.com/lvc/japi-compliance-checker (not like that has any
> > influence on what Sean used, though :D)
> >
> >
> > Corey Nolet wrote:
> >
> >> Sean- is this what you were using [1]?
> >>
> >> [1] https://java.net/projects/jascc
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Christopher
> wrote:
> >>
> >>  Various ITs timed out. I'll have to re-run on a more reliable machine.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Corey Nolet
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  I did notice something strange reviewing this RC. It appears the
> >
>  staging
> >>>
>  repo doesn't have hash files for the detached GPG signatures
> >
>  (*.asc.md5,
> >>>
>  *.asc.sha1). That's new. Did you do something special regarding this,
> > Corey? Or maybe this is just a change with mvn, or maybe it's a
> change
> >
>  with
> 
> > the staging repo? It's not an issue... the GPG signature doesn't need
> >
>  to
> >>>
>  also be hashed... it's just different and unexpected.
> >
>  I did update maven to the newest version. Other than that, I haven't
>  done
>  anything different int he release process.
> 
>   I could not complete a full build, because I had IT test timeouts
> with
> > timeout.factor=2.
> >
>  Which IT tests were timing out for you?
> 
>  On Jan 21, 2015 6:22 PM, "Christopher"  wrote:
> 
>   I did notice something strange reviewing this RC. It appears the
> >
>  staging
> >>>
>  repo doesn't have hash files for the detached GPG signatures
> >
>  (*.asc.md5,
> >>>
>  *.asc.sha1). That's new. Did you do something special regarding this,
> > Corey? Or maybe this is just a change with mvn, or maybe it's a
> change
> >
>  with
> 
> > the staging repo? It's not an issue... the GPG signature doesn't need
> >
>  to
> >>>
>  also be hashed... it's just different and unexpected.
> >
> > Other checks I ran:
> > GPG signatures on all the artifact files were good, so were the md5
> and
> > sha1 hashes.
> > Every jar artifact has a corresponding source/javadoc jar.
> > The git commit matches that specified in the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF for
> >
>  each
> 
> > jar
> > The lib directory contains the same jars as those signed/hashed.
> > The branch matches the tag matches the source tarball contents.
> >
> > I could not complete a full build, because I had IT test timeouts
> with
> > timeout.factor=2.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Keith Turner
> >
>  wrote:
> >>>
>  I also ran the compliance checker tool.  The only other changes were
> >>
> > in
> >>>
>  o.a.a.core.data.KeyValue.  But that class is not listed as part of
> >>
> > public
> 
> > API.  The changes showed up in the report because the class was in
> >>
> > data
> >>>
>  package.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Christopher
> >>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Sean Busbey >>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:57 AM,  wrote:
> 
>   I concur. This change makes the version of this release 1.7.0.
> >
>  We
> >>>
>  either
> >>>
>  need to change the version or remove the method. Good catch.
> >
>  Out
> >>>
>  of
> 
> > curiosity, did you find this by visual inspection or with a
> >
>  tool?
> >>>
> 
> >  While I have many eyes, they don't generally get spent on
> 
> >>> comprehensive
> >
> >> code reviews. ;)
> 
>  I used the Java API Compatibility Checker.
> 
> 
> 
>   Was that the only violation?
> >>>
> >>> (Also, -1 for the same reason.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
> --
> Sean
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1

[Sean Busbey]

Josh is correct, I used Java ACC.

Our instructions are still present: *http://s.apache.org/ZrV
*


On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Josh Elser  wrote:

> I think we used to have instruction lying around that described how to use
> https://github.com/lvc/japi-compliance-checker (not like that has any
> influence on what Sean used, though :D)
>
>
> Corey Nolet wrote:
>
>> Sean- is this what you were using [1]?
>>
>> [1] https://java.net/projects/jascc
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Christopher  wrote:
>>
>>  Various ITs timed out. I'll have to re-run on a more reliable machine.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Corey Nolet  wrote:
>>>
>>>  I did notice something strange reviewing this RC. It appears the
>
 staging
>>>
 repo doesn't have hash files for the detached GPG signatures
>
 (*.asc.md5,
>>>
 *.asc.sha1). That's new. Did you do something special regarding this,
> Corey? Or maybe this is just a change with mvn, or maybe it's a change
>
 with

> the staging repo? It's not an issue... the GPG signature doesn't need
>
 to
>>>
 also be hashed... it's just different and unexpected.
>
 I did update maven to the newest version. Other than that, I haven't
 done
 anything different int he release process.

  I could not complete a full build, because I had IT test timeouts with
> timeout.factor=2.
>
 Which IT tests were timing out for you?

 On Jan 21, 2015 6:22 PM, "Christopher"  wrote:

  I did notice something strange reviewing this RC. It appears the
>
 staging
>>>
 repo doesn't have hash files for the detached GPG signatures
>
 (*.asc.md5,
>>>
 *.asc.sha1). That's new. Did you do something special regarding this,
> Corey? Or maybe this is just a change with mvn, or maybe it's a change
>
 with

> the staging repo? It's not an issue... the GPG signature doesn't need
>
 to
>>>
 also be hashed... it's just different and unexpected.
>
> Other checks I ran:
> GPG signatures on all the artifact files were good, so were the md5 and
> sha1 hashes.
> Every jar artifact has a corresponding source/javadoc jar.
> The git commit matches that specified in the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF for
>
 each

> jar
> The lib directory contains the same jars as those signed/hashed.
> The branch matches the tag matches the source tarball contents.
>
> I could not complete a full build, because I had IT test timeouts with
> timeout.factor=2.
>
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Keith Turner
>
 wrote:
>>>
 I also ran the compliance checker tool.  The only other changes were
>>
> in
>>>
 o.a.a.core.data.KeyValue.  But that class is not listed as part of
>>
> public

> API.  The changes showed up in the report because the class was in
>>
> data
>>>
 package.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Christopher
>>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Sean Busbey>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:57 AM,  wrote:

  I concur. This change makes the version of this release 1.7.0.
>
 We
>>>
 either
>>>
 need to change the version or remove the method. Good catch.
>
 Out
>>>
 of

> curiosity, did you find this by visual inspection or with a
>
 tool?
>>>

>  While I have many eyes, they don't generally get spent on

>>> comprehensive
>
>> code reviews. ;)

 I used the Java API Compatibility Checker.



  Was that the only violation?
>>>
>>> (Also, -1 for the same reason.)
>>>
>>>
>>


-- 
Sean

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1

[Josh Elser]

I think we used to have instruction lying around that described how to 
use https://github.com/lvc/japi-compliance-checker (not like that has 
any influence on what Sean used, though :D)


Corey Nolet wrote:

Sean- is this what you were using [1]?

[1] https://java.net/projects/jascc

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Christopher  wrote:


Various ITs timed out. I'll have to re-run on a more reliable machine.


--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Corey Nolet  wrote:


I did notice something strange reviewing this RC. It appears the

staging

repo doesn't have hash files for the detached GPG signatures

(*.asc.md5,

*.asc.sha1). That's new. Did you do something special regarding this,
Corey? Or maybe this is just a change with mvn, or maybe it's a change

with

the staging repo? It's not an issue... the GPG signature doesn't need

to

also be hashed... it's just different and unexpected.

I did update maven to the newest version. Other than that, I haven't done
anything different int he release process.


I could not complete a full build, because I had IT test timeouts with
timeout.factor=2.

Which IT tests were timing out for you?

On Jan 21, 2015 6:22 PM, "Christopher"  wrote:


I did notice something strange reviewing this RC. It appears the

staging

repo doesn't have hash files for the detached GPG signatures

(*.asc.md5,

*.asc.sha1). That's new. Did you do something special regarding this,
Corey? Or maybe this is just a change with mvn, or maybe it's a change

with

the staging repo? It's not an issue... the GPG signature doesn't need

to

also be hashed... it's just different and unexpected.

Other checks I ran:
GPG signatures on all the artifact files were good, so were the md5 and
sha1 hashes.
Every jar artifact has a corresponding source/javadoc jar.
The git commit matches that specified in the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF for

each

jar
The lib directory contains the same jars as those signed/hashed.
The branch matches the tag matches the source tarball contents.

I could not complete a full build, because I had IT test timeouts with
timeout.factor=2.



--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Keith Turner

wrote:

I also ran the compliance checker tool.  The only other changes were

in

o.a.a.core.data.KeyValue.  But that class is not listed as part of

public

API.  The changes showed up in the report because the class was in

data

package.

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Christopher

wrote:

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Sean Busbey
wrote:

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:57 AM,  wrote:


I concur. This change makes the version of this release 1.7.0.

We

either

need to change the version or remove the method. Good catch.

Out

of

curiosity, did you find this by visual inspection or with a

tool?



While I have many eyes, they don't generally get spent on

comprehensive

code reviews. ;)

I used the Java API Compatibility Checker.




Was that the only violation?

(Also, -1 for the same reason.)

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1

[Corey Nolet]

Sean- is this what you were using [1]?

[1] https://java.net/projects/jascc

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Christopher  wrote:

> Various ITs timed out. I'll have to re-run on a more reliable machine.
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Corey Nolet  wrote:
>
> > > I did notice something strange reviewing this RC. It appears the
> staging
> > > repo doesn't have hash files for the detached GPG signatures
> (*.asc.md5,
> > > *.asc.sha1). That's new. Did you do something special regarding this,
> > > Corey? Or maybe this is just a change with mvn, or maybe it's a change
> > with
> > > the staging repo? It's not an issue... the GPG signature doesn't need
> to
> > > also be hashed... it's just different and unexpected.
> >
> > I did update maven to the newest version. Other than that, I haven't done
> > anything different int he release process.
> >
> > > I could not complete a full build, because I had IT test timeouts with
> > > timeout.factor=2.
> >
> > Which IT tests were timing out for you?
> >
> > On Jan 21, 2015 6:22 PM, "Christopher"  wrote:
> >
> > > I did notice something strange reviewing this RC. It appears the
> staging
> > > repo doesn't have hash files for the detached GPG signatures
> (*.asc.md5,
> > > *.asc.sha1). That's new. Did you do something special regarding this,
> > > Corey? Or maybe this is just a change with mvn, or maybe it's a change
> > with
> > > the staging repo? It's not an issue... the GPG signature doesn't need
> to
> > > also be hashed... it's just different and unexpected.
> > >
> > > Other checks I ran:
> > > GPG signatures on all the artifact files were good, so were the md5 and
> > > sha1 hashes.
> > > Every jar artifact has a corresponding source/javadoc jar.
> > > The git commit matches that specified in the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF for
> > each
> > > jar
> > > The lib directory contains the same jars as those signed/hashed.
> > > The branch matches the tag matches the source tarball contents.
> > >
> > > I could not complete a full build, because I had IT test timeouts with
> > > timeout.factor=2.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Keith Turner 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I also ran the compliance checker tool.  The only other changes were
> in
> > > > o.a.a.core.data.KeyValue.  But that class is not listed as part of
> > public
> > > > API.  The changes showed up in the report because the class was in
> data
> > > > package.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Christopher 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Sean Busbey  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:57 AM,  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I concur. This change makes the version of this release 1.7.0.
> We
> > > > > either
> > > > > > > need to change the version or remove the method. Good catch.
> Out
> > of
> > > > > > > curiosity, did you find this by visual inspection or with a
> tool?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > While I have many eyes, they don't generally get spent on
> > > comprehensive
> > > > > > code reviews. ;)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I used the Java API Compatibility Checker.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Was that the only violation?
> > > > >
> > > > > (Also, -1 for the same reason.)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1

[Christopher]

Various ITs timed out. I'll have to re-run on a more reliable machine.


--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Corey Nolet  wrote:

> > I did notice something strange reviewing this RC. It appears the staging
> > repo doesn't have hash files for the detached GPG signatures (*.asc.md5,
> > *.asc.sha1). That's new. Did you do something special regarding this,
> > Corey? Or maybe this is just a change with mvn, or maybe it's a change
> with
> > the staging repo? It's not an issue... the GPG signature doesn't need to
> > also be hashed... it's just different and unexpected.
>
> I did update maven to the newest version. Other than that, I haven't done
> anything different int he release process.
>
> > I could not complete a full build, because I had IT test timeouts with
> > timeout.factor=2.
>
> Which IT tests were timing out for you?
>
> On Jan 21, 2015 6:22 PM, "Christopher"  wrote:
>
> > I did notice something strange reviewing this RC. It appears the staging
> > repo doesn't have hash files for the detached GPG signatures (*.asc.md5,
> > *.asc.sha1). That's new. Did you do something special regarding this,
> > Corey? Or maybe this is just a change with mvn, or maybe it's a change
> with
> > the staging repo? It's not an issue... the GPG signature doesn't need to
> > also be hashed... it's just different and unexpected.
> >
> > Other checks I ran:
> > GPG signatures on all the artifact files were good, so were the md5 and
> > sha1 hashes.
> > Every jar artifact has a corresponding source/javadoc jar.
> > The git commit matches that specified in the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF for
> each
> > jar
> > The lib directory contains the same jars as those signed/hashed.
> > The branch matches the tag matches the source tarball contents.
> >
> > I could not complete a full build, because I had IT test timeouts with
> > timeout.factor=2.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Keith Turner  wrote:
> >
> > > I also ran the compliance checker tool.  The only other changes were in
> > > o.a.a.core.data.KeyValue.  But that class is not listed as part of
> public
> > > API.  The changes showed up in the report because the class was in data
> > > package.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Christopher 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Sean Busbey 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:57 AM,  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I concur. This change makes the version of this release 1.7.0. We
> > > > either
> > > > > > need to change the version or remove the method. Good catch. Out
> of
> > > > > > curiosity, did you find this by visual inspection or with a tool?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > While I have many eyes, they don't generally get spent on
> > comprehensive
> > > > > code reviews. ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > I used the Java API Compatibility Checker.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Was that the only violation?
> > > >
> > > > (Also, -1 for the same reason.)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1

[Corey Nolet]

> I did notice something strange reviewing this RC. It appears the staging
> repo doesn't have hash files for the detached GPG signatures (*.asc.md5,
> *.asc.sha1). That's new. Did you do something special regarding this,
> Corey? Or maybe this is just a change with mvn, or maybe it's a change
with
> the staging repo? It's not an issue... the GPG signature doesn't need to
> also be hashed... it's just different and unexpected.

I did update maven to the newest version. Other than that, I haven't done
anything different int he release process.

> I could not complete a full build, because I had IT test timeouts with
> timeout.factor=2.

Which IT tests were timing out for you?

On Jan 21, 2015 6:22 PM, "Christopher"  wrote:

> I did notice something strange reviewing this RC. It appears the staging
> repo doesn't have hash files for the detached GPG signatures (*.asc.md5,
> *.asc.sha1). That's new. Did you do something special regarding this,
> Corey? Or maybe this is just a change with mvn, or maybe it's a change with
> the staging repo? It's not an issue... the GPG signature doesn't need to
> also be hashed... it's just different and unexpected.
>
> Other checks I ran:
> GPG signatures on all the artifact files were good, so were the md5 and
> sha1 hashes.
> Every jar artifact has a corresponding source/javadoc jar.
> The git commit matches that specified in the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF for each
> jar
> The lib directory contains the same jars as those signed/hashed.
> The branch matches the tag matches the source tarball contents.
>
> I could not complete a full build, because I had IT test timeouts with
> timeout.factor=2.
>
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Keith Turner  wrote:
>
> > I also ran the compliance checker tool.  The only other changes were in
> > o.a.a.core.data.KeyValue.  But that class is not listed as part of public
> > API.  The changes showed up in the report because the class was in data
> > package.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Christopher 
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Sean Busbey 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:57 AM,  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I concur. This change makes the version of this release 1.7.0. We
> > > either
> > > > > need to change the version or remove the method. Good catch. Out of
> > > > > curiosity, did you find this by visual inspection or with a tool?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > While I have many eyes, they don't generally get spent on
> comprehensive
> > > > code reviews. ;)
> > > >
> > > > I used the Java API Compatibility Checker.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Was that the only violation?
> > >
> > > (Also, -1 for the same reason.)
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1

[Christopher]

I did notice something strange reviewing this RC. It appears the staging
repo doesn't have hash files for the detached GPG signatures (*.asc.md5,
*.asc.sha1). That's new. Did you do something special regarding this,
Corey? Or maybe this is just a change with mvn, or maybe it's a change with
the staging repo? It's not an issue... the GPG signature doesn't need to
also be hashed... it's just different and unexpected.

Other checks I ran:
GPG signatures on all the artifact files were good, so were the md5 and
sha1 hashes.
Every jar artifact has a corresponding source/javadoc jar.
The git commit matches that specified in the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF for each
jar
The lib directory contains the same jars as those signed/hashed.
The branch matches the tag matches the source tarball contents.

I could not complete a full build, because I had IT test timeouts with
timeout.factor=2.



--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Keith Turner  wrote:

> I also ran the compliance checker tool.  The only other changes were in
> o.a.a.core.data.KeyValue.  But that class is not listed as part of public
> API.  The changes showed up in the report because the class was in data
> package.
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Christopher  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Sean Busbey 
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:57 AM,  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I concur. This change makes the version of this release 1.7.0. We
> > either
> > > > need to change the version or remove the method. Good catch. Out of
> > > > curiosity, did you find this by visual inspection or with a tool?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > While I have many eyes, they don't generally get spent on comprehensive
> > > code reviews. ;)
> > >
> > > I used the Java API Compatibility Checker.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Was that the only violation?
> >
> > (Also, -1 for the same reason.)
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1

[Josh Elser]

-1 for the API issue

Good things though:

* Sigs on bin and src tarball look good
* Built using src tarball
* Unit tests and integration tests passed for me 
(ConditionalWriter.testTrace failed but passed on 2 re-runs)

* KEYS looks good

Thanks Corey!

Corey Nolet wrote:

 Devs,

 Please consider the following candidate for Apache Accumulo 1.6.2

 Branch: 1.6.2-rc1
 SHA1: 533d93adb17e8b27c5243c97209796f66c6b8b2d
 Staging Repository:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/

 Source tarball:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.6.2/accumulo-1.6.2-src.tar.gz
 Binary tarball:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.6.2/accumulo-1.6.2-bin.tar.gz
 (Append ".sha1", ".md5" or ".asc" to download the signature/hash for a
given artifact.)

 Signing keys available at: https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS

 Over 1.6.1, we have 136 issues resolved
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=accumulo.git;a=blob;f=CHANGES;h=925dd1380be94109cc1f85df7ce75f9c01d8b26d;hb=1.6.2-rc1

 Testing: All unit, integration and functional tests are passing.

 Vote will be open until Saturday, January 24th 12:00AM UTC (1/23 8:00PM
ET, 1/23 5:00PM PT)

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1

[Keith Turner]

I also ran the compliance checker tool.  The only other changes were in
o.a.a.core.data.KeyValue.  But that class is not listed as part of public
API.  The changes showed up in the report because the class was in data
package.

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Christopher  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Sean Busbey  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:57 AM,  wrote:
> >
> > > I concur. This change makes the version of this release 1.7.0. We
> either
> > > need to change the version or remove the method. Good catch. Out of
> > > curiosity, did you find this by visual inspection or with a tool?
> > >
> > >
> > While I have many eyes, they don't generally get spent on comprehensive
> > code reviews. ;)
> >
> > I used the Java API Compatibility Checker.
> >
> >
> >
> Was that the only violation?
>
> (Also, -1 for the same reason.)
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1

[Christopher]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Sean Busbey  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:57 AM,  wrote:
>
> > I concur. This change makes the version of this release 1.7.0. We either
> > need to change the version or remove the method. Good catch. Out of
> > curiosity, did you find this by visual inspection or with a tool?
> >
> >
> While I have many eyes, they don't generally get spent on comprehensive
> code reviews. ;)
>
> I used the Java API Compatibility Checker.
>
>
>
Was that the only violation?

(Also, -1 for the same reason.)

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1

[Corey Nolet]

-1

I think the compatibility tool should be run as standard procedure when
doing a bug fix release.
On Jan 21, 2015 2:10 PM, "Keith Turner"  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:08 AM, Sean Busbey  wrote:
>
> > -1
> >
> > The addition of
> >
> > org.apache.accumulo.minicluster
> > MiniAccumuloConfig.useExistingInstance ( java.io.File accumuloSite,
> > java.io.File hadoopConfDir )  *:*  MiniAccumuloConfig
> >
> > breaks our semver rules for a patch version increment because it adds
> > backwards-compatible new functionality to the public API.
> >
>
> nice catch
>
> -1
>
>
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Corey Nolet 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Devs,
> > >
> > > Please consider the following candidate for Apache Accumulo 1.6.2
> > >
> > > Branch: 1.6.2-rc1
> > > SHA1: 533d93adb17e8b27c5243c97209796f66c6b8b2d
> > > Staging Repository:
> > >
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/
> > >
> > > Source tarball:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.6.2/accumulo-1.6.2-src.tar.gz
> > > Binary tarball:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.6.2/accumulo-1.6.2-bin.tar.gz
> > > (Append ".sha1", ".md5" or ".asc" to download the signature/hash
> for
> > a
> > > given artifact.)
> > >
> > > Signing keys available at:
> https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS
> > >
> > > Over 1.6.1, we have 136 issues resolved
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=accumulo.git;a=blob;f=CHANGES;h=925dd1380be94109cc1f85df7ce75f9c01d8b26d;hb=1.6.2-rc1
> > >
> > > Testing: All unit, integration and functional tests are passing.
> > >
> > > Vote will be open until Saturday, January 24th 12:00AM UTC (1/23
> > 8:00PM
> > > ET, 1/23 5:00PM PT)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sean
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1

[Keith Turner]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:08 AM, Sean Busbey  wrote:

> -1
>
> The addition of
>
> org.apache.accumulo.minicluster
> MiniAccumuloConfig.useExistingInstance ( java.io.File accumuloSite,
> java.io.File hadoopConfDir )  *:*  MiniAccumuloConfig
>
> breaks our semver rules for a patch version increment because it adds
> backwards-compatible new functionality to the public API.
>

nice catch

-1


>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Corey Nolet  wrote:
>
> > Devs,
> >
> > Please consider the following candidate for Apache Accumulo 1.6.2
> >
> > Branch: 1.6.2-rc1
> > SHA1: 533d93adb17e8b27c5243c97209796f66c6b8b2d
> > Staging Repository:
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/
> >
> > Source tarball:
> >
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.6.2/accumulo-1.6.2-src.tar.gz
> > Binary tarball:
> >
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.6.2/accumulo-1.6.2-bin.tar.gz
> > (Append ".sha1", ".md5" or ".asc" to download the signature/hash for
> a
> > given artifact.)
> >
> > Signing keys available at: https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS
> >
> > Over 1.6.1, we have 136 issues resolved
> >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=accumulo.git;a=blob;f=CHANGES;h=925dd1380be94109cc1f85df7ce75f9c01d8b26d;hb=1.6.2-rc1
> >
> > Testing: All unit, integration and functional tests are passing.
> >
> > Vote will be open until Saturday, January 24th 12:00AM UTC (1/23
> 8:00PM
> > ET, 1/23 5:00PM PT)
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sean
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1

[Josh Elser]

Filed ACCUMULO-3505 and will grab it in a little bit.

John, feel free to chime in on the issue if you care if this method 
makes it into MAConfig for 1.7.0.


dlmar...@comcast.net wrote:

Whatever works. Just as long as the public api doesn't change, then we can call 
it 1.6.2.


- Original Message -

From: "Josh Elser"
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 10:08:04 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1

Or, it just gets pushed down to MiniAccumuloConfigImpl which has been
the going practice.

dlmar...@comcast.net wrote:

I concur. This change makes the version of this release 1.7.0. We either need 
to change the version or remove the method. Good catch. Out of curiosity, did 
you find this by visual inspection or with a tool?


- Original Message -

From: "Sean Busbey"
To: "dev@accumulo apache. org"
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:08:39 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1

-1

The addition of

org.apache.accumulo.minicluster
MiniAccumuloConfig.useExistingInstance ( java.io.File accumuloSite,
java.io.File hadoopConfDir ) *:* MiniAccumuloConfig

breaks our semver rules for a patch version increment because it adds
backwards-compatible new functionality to the public API.

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Corey Nolet  wrote:


Devs,

Please consider the following candidate for Apache Accumulo 1.6.2

Branch: 1.6.2-rc1
SHA1: 533d93adb17e8b27c5243c97209796f66c6b8b2d
Staging Repository:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/

Source tarball:

https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.6.2/accumulo-1.6.2-src.tar.gz
Binary tarball:

https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.6.2/accumulo-1.6.2-bin.tar.gz
(Append ".sha1", ".md5" or ".asc" to download the signature/hash for a
given artifact.)

Signing keys available at: https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS

Over 1.6.1, we have 136 issues resolved

https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=accumulo.git;a=blob;f=CHANGES;h=925dd1380be94109cc1f85df7ce75f9c01d8b26d;hb=1.6.2-rc1

Testing: All unit, integration and functional tests are passing.

Vote will be open until Saturday, January 24th 12:00AM UTC (1/23 8:00PM
ET, 1/23 5:00PM PT)

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1

[Sean Busbey]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:57 AM,  wrote:

> I concur. This change makes the version of this release 1.7.0. We either
> need to change the version or remove the method. Good catch. Out of
> curiosity, did you find this by visual inspection or with a tool?
>
>
While I have many eyes, they don't generally get spent on comprehensive
code reviews. ;)

I used the Java API Compatibility Checker.


-- 
Sean

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1

[dlmarion]

Whatever works. Just as long as the public api doesn't change, then we can call 
it 1.6.2. 


- Original Message -

From: "Josh Elser"  
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org 
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 10:08:04 AM 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1 

Or, it just gets pushed down to MiniAccumuloConfigImpl which has been 
the going practice. 

dlmar...@comcast.net wrote: 
> I concur. This change makes the version of this release 1.7.0. We either need 
> to change the version or remove the method. Good catch. Out of curiosity, did 
> you find this by visual inspection or with a tool? 
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> 
> From: "Sean Busbey" 
> To: "dev@accumulo apache. org" 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:08:39 AM 
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1 
> 
> -1 
> 
> The addition of 
> 
> org.apache.accumulo.minicluster 
> MiniAccumuloConfig.useExistingInstance ( java.io.File accumuloSite, 
> java.io.File hadoopConfDir ) *:* MiniAccumuloConfig 
> 
> breaks our semver rules for a patch version increment because it adds 
> backwards-compatible new functionality to the public API. 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Corey Nolet wrote: 
> 
>> Devs, 
>> 
>> Please consider the following candidate for Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 
>> 
>> Branch: 1.6.2-rc1 
>> SHA1: 533d93adb17e8b27c5243c97209796f66c6b8b2d 
>> Staging Repository: 
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/ 
>> 
>> Source tarball: 
>> 
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.6.2/accumulo-1.6.2-src.tar.gz
>>  
>> Binary tarball: 
>> 
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.6.2/accumulo-1.6.2-bin.tar.gz
>>  
>> (Append ".sha1", ".md5" or ".asc" to download the signature/hash for a 
>> given artifact.) 
>> 
>> Signing keys available at: https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS 
>> 
>> Over 1.6.1, we have 136 issues resolved 
>> 
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=accumulo.git;a=blob;f=CHANGES;h=925dd1380be94109cc1f85df7ce75f9c01d8b26d;hb=1.6.2-rc1
>>  
>> 
>> Testing: All unit, integration and functional tests are passing. 
>> 
>> Vote will be open until Saturday, January 24th 12:00AM UTC (1/23 8:00PM 
>> ET, 1/23 5:00PM PT) 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1

[Josh Elser]

Or, it just gets pushed down to MiniAccumuloConfigImpl which has been 
the going practice.


dlmar...@comcast.net wrote:

I concur. This change makes the version of this release 1.7.0. We either need 
to change the version or remove the method. Good catch. Out of curiosity, did 
you find this by visual inspection or with a tool?


- Original Message -

From: "Sean Busbey"
To: "dev@accumulo apache. org"
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:08:39 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1

-1

The addition of

org.apache.accumulo.minicluster
MiniAccumuloConfig.useExistingInstance ( java.io.File accumuloSite,
java.io.File hadoopConfDir ) *:* MiniAccumuloConfig

breaks our semver rules for a patch version increment because it adds
backwards-compatible new functionality to the public API.

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Corey Nolet  wrote:


Devs,

Please consider the following candidate for Apache Accumulo 1.6.2

Branch: 1.6.2-rc1
SHA1: 533d93adb17e8b27c5243c97209796f66c6b8b2d
Staging Repository:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/

Source tarball:

https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.6.2/accumulo-1.6.2-src.tar.gz
Binary tarball:

https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.6.2/accumulo-1.6.2-bin.tar.gz
(Append ".sha1", ".md5" or ".asc" to download the signature/hash for a
given artifact.)

Signing keys available at: https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS

Over 1.6.1, we have 136 issues resolved

https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=accumulo.git;a=blob;f=CHANGES;h=925dd1380be94109cc1f85df7ce75f9c01d8b26d;hb=1.6.2-rc1

Testing: All unit, integration and functional tests are passing.

Vote will be open until Saturday, January 24th 12:00AM UTC (1/23 8:00PM
ET, 1/23 5:00PM PT)

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1

[dlmarion]

I concur. This change makes the version of this release 1.7.0. We either need 
to change the version or remove the method. Good catch. Out of curiosity, did 
you find this by visual inspection or with a tool? 


- Original Message -

From: "Sean Busbey"  
To: "dev@accumulo apache. org"  
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:08:39 AM 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1 

-1 

The addition of 

org.apache.accumulo.minicluster 
MiniAccumuloConfig.useExistingInstance ( java.io.File accumuloSite, 
java.io.File hadoopConfDir ) *:* MiniAccumuloConfig 

breaks our semver rules for a patch version increment because it adds 
backwards-compatible new functionality to the public API. 

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Corey Nolet  wrote: 

> Devs, 
> 
> Please consider the following candidate for Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 
> 
> Branch: 1.6.2-rc1 
> SHA1: 533d93adb17e8b27c5243c97209796f66c6b8b2d 
> Staging Repository: 
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/ 
> 
> Source tarball: 
> 
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.6.2/accumulo-1.6.2-src.tar.gz
>  
> Binary tarball: 
> 
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.6.2/accumulo-1.6.2-bin.tar.gz
>  
> (Append ".sha1", ".md5" or ".asc" to download the signature/hash for a 
> given artifact.) 
> 
> Signing keys available at: https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS 
> 
> Over 1.6.1, we have 136 issues resolved 
> 
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=accumulo.git;a=blob;f=CHANGES;h=925dd1380be94109cc1f85df7ce75f9c01d8b26d;hb=1.6.2-rc1
>  
> 
> Testing: All unit, integration and functional tests are passing. 
> 
> Vote will be open until Saturday, January 24th 12:00AM UTC (1/23 8:00PM 
> ET, 1/23 5:00PM PT) 
> 



-- 
Sean 

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1

[Sean Busbey]

-1

The addition of

org.apache.accumulo.minicluster
MiniAccumuloConfig.useExistingInstance ( java.io.File accumuloSite,
java.io.File hadoopConfDir )  *:*  MiniAccumuloConfig

breaks our semver rules for a patch version increment because it adds
backwards-compatible new functionality to the public API.

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Corey Nolet  wrote:

> Devs,
>
> Please consider the following candidate for Apache Accumulo 1.6.2
>
> Branch: 1.6.2-rc1
> SHA1: 533d93adb17e8b27c5243c97209796f66c6b8b2d
> Staging Repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/
>
> Source tarball:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.6.2/accumulo-1.6.2-src.tar.gz
> Binary tarball:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1018/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.6.2/accumulo-1.6.2-bin.tar.gz
> (Append ".sha1", ".md5" or ".asc" to download the signature/hash for a
> given artifact.)
>
> Signing keys available at: https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS
>
> Over 1.6.1, we have 136 issues resolved
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=accumulo.git;a=blob;f=CHANGES;h=925dd1380be94109cc1f85df7ce75f9c01d8b26d;hb=1.6.2-rc1
>
> Testing: All unit, integration and functional tests are passing.
>
> Vote will be open until Saturday, January 24th 12:00AM UTC (1/23 8:00PM
> ET, 1/23 5:00PM PT)
>



-- 
Sean