Re: [Review] The first release of Apache DistributedLog
Yes. it is part of the plan. On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Xi Liu wrote: > It would be great to include any performance numbers. > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > > > Cool to see you here, Enrico. And thank you for your suggestion. > > > > I will try to write a separate one for DL and BK. Try to keep this one > > focus on a short release post. > > > > - Sijie > > > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Enrico Olivelli > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Sijie, > > > I am following this release and the great work DL comunity is doing. > > > Maybe it would be worth to write some paragraph about the difference > from > > > BookKeeper and/or the relation with it. > > > > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > > Il gio 5 gen 2017, 19:13 Asko Kauppi ha > > scritto: > > > > > > > Hi Sijie, > > > > > > > > most readers will likely not know about DistributedLog. A short > > > comparison > > > > - or a link to one - e.g. with Kafka might help set the stage for > them. > > > > i.e. why does it exist? > > > > > > > > This is even more important since Uber recently also publicized their > > > > persistent message bus solution. If these start dropping down, there > > > needs > > > > to be more (technical) reason than just another vendor opening their > > > chest. > > > > :) > > > > > > > > Other than that, the structure seemed nice but it can be slightly > > > shorter. > > > > > > > > Just my 2c > > > > - asko > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4 January 2017 at 10:38, Sijie Guo wrote: > > > > > > > > > I drafted a blog post for announcing the first apache release. Here > > is > > > > the > > > > > draft. Please help review it :D > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IXVmP2cHkf4ydeUHUJN9p5ZWTpA1a > > > > > uwBhfqMnYBu4A0/edit > > > > > > > > > > - Sijie > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > -- Enrico Olivelli > > > > > >
Re: [Review] The first release of Apache DistributedLog
It would be great to include any performance numbers. On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > Cool to see you here, Enrico. And thank you for your suggestion. > > I will try to write a separate one for DL and BK. Try to keep this one > focus on a short release post. > > - Sijie > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Enrico Olivelli > wrote: > > > Hi Sijie, > > I am following this release and the great work DL comunity is doing. > > Maybe it would be worth to write some paragraph about the difference from > > BookKeeper and/or the relation with it. > > > > > > Enrico > > > > Il gio 5 gen 2017, 19:13 Asko Kauppi ha > scritto: > > > > > Hi Sijie, > > > > > > most readers will likely not know about DistributedLog. A short > > comparison > > > - or a link to one - e.g. with Kafka might help set the stage for them. > > > i.e. why does it exist? > > > > > > This is even more important since Uber recently also publicized their > > > persistent message bus solution. If these start dropping down, there > > needs > > > to be more (technical) reason than just another vendor opening their > > chest. > > > :) > > > > > > Other than that, the structure seemed nice but it can be slightly > > shorter. > > > > > > Just my 2c > > > - asko > > > > > > > > > On 4 January 2017 at 10:38, Sijie Guo wrote: > > > > > > > I drafted a blog post for announcing the first apache release. Here > is > > > the > > > > draft. Please help review it :D > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IXVmP2cHkf4ydeUHUJN9p5ZWTpA1a > > > > uwBhfqMnYBu4A0/edit > > > > > > > > - Sijie > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > -- Enrico Olivelli > > >
Re: [Review] The first release of Apache DistributedLog
Cool to see you here, Enrico. And thank you for your suggestion. I will try to write a separate one for DL and BK. Try to keep this one focus on a short release post. - Sijie On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Hi Sijie, > I am following this release and the great work DL comunity is doing. > Maybe it would be worth to write some paragraph about the difference from > BookKeeper and/or the relation with it. > > > Enrico > > Il gio 5 gen 2017, 19:13 Asko Kauppi ha scritto: > > > Hi Sijie, > > > > most readers will likely not know about DistributedLog. A short > comparison > > - or a link to one - e.g. with Kafka might help set the stage for them. > > i.e. why does it exist? > > > > This is even more important since Uber recently also publicized their > > persistent message bus solution. If these start dropping down, there > needs > > to be more (technical) reason than just another vendor opening their > chest. > > :) > > > > Other than that, the structure seemed nice but it can be slightly > shorter. > > > > Just my 2c > > - asko > > > > > > On 4 January 2017 at 10:38, Sijie Guo wrote: > > > > > I drafted a blog post for announcing the first apache release. Here is > > the > > > draft. Please help review it :D > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IXVmP2cHkf4ydeUHUJN9p5ZWTpA1a > > > uwBhfqMnYBu4A0/edit > > > > > > - Sijie > > > > > > -- > > > -- Enrico Olivelli >
Re: [Review] The first release of Apache DistributedLog
Thank you for your suggestion, Asko. Try to make the announcement post shorter and keep it focused on release. Will try to prepare another post for education. - Sijie On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Asko Kauppi wrote: > Hi Sijie, > > most readers will likely not know about DistributedLog. A short comparison > - or a link to one - e.g. with Kafka might help set the stage for them. > i.e. why does it exist? > > This is even more important since Uber recently also publicized their > persistent message bus solution. If these start dropping down, there needs > to be more (technical) reason than just another vendor opening their chest. > :) > > Other than that, the structure seemed nice but it can be slightly shorter. > > Just my 2c > - asko > > > On 4 January 2017 at 10:38, Sijie Guo wrote: > > > I drafted a blog post for announcing the first apache release. Here is > the > > draft. Please help review it :D > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IXVmP2cHkf4ydeUHUJN9p5ZWTpA1a > > uwBhfqMnYBu4A0/edit > > > > - Sijie > > >
Re: [Review] The first release of Apache DistributedLog
Hi Sijie, I am following this release and the great work DL comunity is doing. Maybe it would be worth to write some paragraph about the difference from BookKeeper and/or the relation with it. Enrico Il gio 5 gen 2017, 19:13 Asko Kauppi ha scritto: > Hi Sijie, > > most readers will likely not know about DistributedLog. A short comparison > - or a link to one - e.g. with Kafka might help set the stage for them. > i.e. why does it exist? > > This is even more important since Uber recently also publicized their > persistent message bus solution. If these start dropping down, there needs > to be more (technical) reason than just another vendor opening their chest. > :) > > Other than that, the structure seemed nice but it can be slightly shorter. > > Just my 2c > - asko > > > On 4 January 2017 at 10:38, Sijie Guo wrote: > > > I drafted a blog post for announcing the first apache release. Here is > the > > draft. Please help review it :D > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IXVmP2cHkf4ydeUHUJN9p5ZWTpA1a > > uwBhfqMnYBu4A0/edit > > > > - Sijie > > > -- -- Enrico Olivelli
Re: [Review] The first release of Apache DistributedLog
Hi Sijie, most readers will likely not know about DistributedLog. A short comparison - or a link to one - e.g. with Kafka might help set the stage for them. i.e. why does it exist? This is even more important since Uber recently also publicized their persistent message bus solution. If these start dropping down, there needs to be more (technical) reason than just another vendor opening their chest. :) Other than that, the structure seemed nice but it can be slightly shorter. Just my 2c - asko On 4 January 2017 at 10:38, Sijie Guo wrote: > I drafted a blog post for announcing the first apache release. Here is the > draft. Please help review it :D > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IXVmP2cHkf4ydeUHUJN9p5ZWTpA1a > uwBhfqMnYBu4A0/edit > > - Sijie >
Re: [DISCUSSION] First Release
cool! Thank you so much for rebasing this. - Sijie On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 6:20 PM, liang xie wrote: > The conflicted DL-167 change has been rebased, please help to review :) > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Sijie Guo wrote: > > FYI. I merged the repackage script and repackage the namespace under > > org.apache.distributedlog. All the changes for 0.4.0 are merged (except > one > > test case change - waiting for Liang's response). Ready to cut the first > > release candidate. > > > > - Sijie > > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > > > >> I've merged all the pull requests that need to be included in 0.4.0 (and > >> both Jenkins and CI builds are green now). Also I moved inactive jiras > to > >> 0.5.0. > >> > >> There are a few issues remaining - https://issues.apache.org/ > >> jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20DL%20AND%20resolution%20% > >> 3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%200.4.0% > >> 20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC > >> > >> Most of them already have pull requests (but need to be rebased to > latest > >> master). So I can merge them. > >> > >> Hopefully I will be able to cut 0.4.0 release in following few days. > >> > >> - Sijie > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > >> > >>> I will start check the jiras that need to be included in 0.4.0 release > at > >>> the weekend. If there is any jiras that need to be included in 0.4.0, > >>> please comment in the jira. > >>> > >>> - Sijie > >>> > >>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > >>> > >>>> FYI. > >>>> > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-81 is created for tracking > >>>> building the process. > >>>> > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13024 and > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13023 for setting the > dists > >>>> for DL. > >>>> > >>>> - Sijie > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Thank you for all the feedbacks. I will drive the release for this > >>>>> version. So that we can have all the procedures documented in the > wiki. > >>>>> > >>>>> I created the wiki page here for documenting the procedure: > >>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DL/Pr > >>>>> eparing+DistributedLog+Releases > >>>>> > >>>>> - Sijie > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Jia Zhai > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> +1 > >>>>>> Great to know the commitment of merge twitter's branch. Looking > >>>>>> forward to > >>>>>> see bookkeeper 4.5. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Flavio Junqueira > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > It does make sense, Sijie, thanks for the update. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > -Flavio > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > On 17 Nov 2016, at 05:12, Sijie Guo wrote: > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > Flavio, > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > I totally agreed that not using an official Apache version is > not > >>>>>> great > >>>>>> > > for the community. We had a bookkeeper meetup last night. We've > >>>>>> discussed > >>>>>> > > the current situation with the community. We came to a > commitment > >>>>>> to > >>>>>> > merge > >>>>>> > > Twitter's branch back into bookkeeper 4.5. After that we won't > >>>>>> maintain > >>>>>> > our > >>>>>> > > own branch and switch to 4.5. > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > Hope this make sense. > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > Sijie > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > On Nov 16, 2016 8:04 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" > >
Re: [DISCUSSION] First Release
The conflicted DL-167 change has been rebased, please help to review :) On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Sijie Guo wrote: > FYI. I merged the repackage script and repackage the namespace under > org.apache.distributedlog. All the changes for 0.4.0 are merged (except one > test case change - waiting for Liang's response). Ready to cut the first > release candidate. > > - Sijie > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > >> I've merged all the pull requests that need to be included in 0.4.0 (and >> both Jenkins and CI builds are green now). Also I moved inactive jiras to >> 0.5.0. >> >> There are a few issues remaining - https://issues.apache.org/ >> jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20DL%20AND%20resolution%20% >> 3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%200.4.0% >> 20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC >> >> Most of them already have pull requests (but need to be rebased to latest >> master). So I can merge them. >> >> Hopefully I will be able to cut 0.4.0 release in following few days. >> >> - Sijie >> >> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: >> >>> I will start check the jiras that need to be included in 0.4.0 release at >>> the weekend. If there is any jiras that need to be included in 0.4.0, >>> please comment in the jira. >>> >>> - Sijie >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: >>> >>>> FYI. >>>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-81 is created for tracking >>>> building the process. >>>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13024 and >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13023 for setting the dists >>>> for DL. >>>> >>>> - Sijie >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thank you for all the feedbacks. I will drive the release for this >>>>> version. So that we can have all the procedures documented in the wiki. >>>>> >>>>> I created the wiki page here for documenting the procedure: >>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DL/Pr >>>>> eparing+DistributedLog+Releases >>>>> >>>>> - Sijie >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Jia Zhai wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> Great to know the commitment of merge twitter's branch. Looking >>>>>> forward to >>>>>> see bookkeeper 4.5. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Flavio Junqueira >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> > It does make sense, Sijie, thanks for the update. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -Flavio >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > On 17 Nov 2016, at 05:12, Sijie Guo wrote: >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Flavio, >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > I totally agreed that not using an official Apache version is not >>>>>> great >>>>>> > > for the community. We had a bookkeeper meetup last night. We've >>>>>> discussed >>>>>> > > the current situation with the community. We came to a commitment >>>>>> to >>>>>> > merge >>>>>> > > Twitter's branch back into bookkeeper 4.5. After that we won't >>>>>> maintain >>>>>> > our >>>>>> > > own branch and switch to 4.5. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Hope this make sense. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Sijie >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > On Nov 16, 2016 8:04 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > It isn't great that DistributedLog is not using the Apache >>>>>> BookKeeper >>>>>> > > release. Essentially anyone using DistributedLog today needs to >>>>>> use the >>>>>> > > Twitter branch of BookKeeper, which has diverged from Apache >>>>>> BookKeeper. >>>>>> > > I'm sure the changes in the Twitter branch are all great, but I'd >>>>>> be more >>>>>>
Re: [DISCUSSION] First Release
FYI. I merged the repackage script and repackage the namespace under org.apache.distributedlog. All the changes for 0.4.0 are merged (except one test case change - waiting for Liang's response). Ready to cut the first release candidate. - Sijie On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > I've merged all the pull requests that need to be included in 0.4.0 (and > both Jenkins and CI builds are green now). Also I moved inactive jiras to > 0.5.0. > > There are a few issues remaining - https://issues.apache.org/ > jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20DL%20AND%20resolution%20% > 3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%200.4.0% > 20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC > > Most of them already have pull requests (but need to be rebased to latest > master). So I can merge them. > > Hopefully I will be able to cut 0.4.0 release in following few days. > > - Sijie > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > >> I will start check the jiras that need to be included in 0.4.0 release at >> the weekend. If there is any jiras that need to be included in 0.4.0, >> please comment in the jira. >> >> - Sijie >> >> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: >> >>> FYI. >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-81 is created for tracking >>> building the process. >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13024 and >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13023 for setting the dists >>> for DL. >>> >>> - Sijie >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you for all the feedbacks. I will drive the release for this >>>> version. So that we can have all the procedures documented in the wiki. >>>> >>>> I created the wiki page here for documenting the procedure: >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DL/Pr >>>> eparing+DistributedLog+Releases >>>> >>>> - Sijie >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Jia Zhai wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> Great to know the commitment of merge twitter's branch. Looking >>>>> forward to >>>>> see bookkeeper 4.5. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Flavio Junqueira >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > It does make sense, Sijie, thanks for the update. >>>>> > >>>>> > -Flavio >>>>> > >>>>> > > On 17 Nov 2016, at 05:12, Sijie Guo wrote: >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Flavio, >>>>> > > >>>>> > > I totally agreed that not using an official Apache version is not >>>>> great >>>>> > > for the community. We had a bookkeeper meetup last night. We've >>>>> discussed >>>>> > > the current situation with the community. We came to a commitment >>>>> to >>>>> > merge >>>>> > > Twitter's branch back into bookkeeper 4.5. After that we won't >>>>> maintain >>>>> > our >>>>> > > own branch and switch to 4.5. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Hope this make sense. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Sijie >>>>> > > >>>>> > > On Nov 16, 2016 8:04 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > > >>>>> > > It isn't great that DistributedLog is not using the Apache >>>>> BookKeeper >>>>> > > release. Essentially anyone using DistributedLog today needs to >>>>> use the >>>>> > > Twitter branch of BookKeeper, which has diverged from Apache >>>>> BookKeeper. >>>>> > > I'm sure the changes in the Twitter branch are all great, but I'd >>>>> be more >>>>> > > comfortable being able to rely on the Apache BookKeeper releases, >>>>> which >>>>> > are >>>>> > > community driven. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > I'm not going to block the release on this alone because it is >>>>> important >>>>> > > for this project to get a first release out soon, but we need to >>>>> fix >>>>> > DL-2. >>>>> > > >>>>> &
[Review] The first release of Apache DistributedLog
I drafted a blog post for announcing the first apache release. Here is the draft. Please help review it :D https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IXVmP2cHkf4ydeUHUJN9p5ZWTpA1auwBhfqMnYBu4A0/edit - Sijie
Re: [DISCUSSION] First Release
Nice work, thanks for doing this. On Dec 29, 2016 8:41 PM, "Sijie Guo" wrote: I've merged all the pull requests that need to be included in 0.4.0 (and both Jenkins and CI builds are green now). Also I moved inactive jiras to 0.5.0. There are a few issues remaining - https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D% 20DL%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20fixVersio n%20%3D%200.4.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC Most of them already have pull requests (but need to be rebased to latest master). So I can merge them. Hopefully I will be able to cut 0.4.0 release in following few days. - Sijie On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > I will start check the jiras that need to be included in 0.4.0 release at > the weekend. If there is any jiras that need to be included in 0.4.0, > please comment in the jira. > > - Sijie > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > >> FYI. >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-81 is created for tracking >> building the process. >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13024 and >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13023 for setting the dists >> for DL. >> >> - Sijie >> >> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: >> >>> Thank you for all the feedbacks. I will drive the release for this >>> version. So that we can have all the procedures documented in the wiki. >>> >>> I created the wiki page here for documenting the procedure: >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DL/Pr >>> eparing+DistributedLog+Releases >>> >>> - Sijie >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Jia Zhai wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> Great to know the commitment of merge twitter's branch. Looking forward >>>> to >>>> see bookkeeper 4.5. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Flavio Junqueira >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > It does make sense, Sijie, thanks for the update. >>>> > >>>> > -Flavio >>>> > >>>> > > On 17 Nov 2016, at 05:12, Sijie Guo wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > Flavio, >>>> > > >>>> > > I totally agreed that not using an official Apache version is not >>>> great >>>> > > for the community. We had a bookkeeper meetup last night. We've >>>> discussed >>>> > > the current situation with the community. We came to a commitment to >>>> > merge >>>> > > Twitter's branch back into bookkeeper 4.5. After that we won't >>>> maintain >>>> > our >>>> > > own branch and switch to 4.5. >>>> > > >>>> > > Hope this make sense. >>>> > > >>>> > > Sijie >>>> > > >>>> > > On Nov 16, 2016 8:04 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > It isn't great that DistributedLog is not using the Apache >>>> BookKeeper >>>> > > release. Essentially anyone using DistributedLog today needs to use >>>> the >>>> > > Twitter branch of BookKeeper, which has diverged from Apache >>>> BookKeeper. >>>> > > I'm sure the changes in the Twitter branch are all great, but I'd >>>> be more >>>> > > comfortable being able to rely on the Apache BookKeeper releases, >>>> which >>>> > are >>>> > > community driven. >>>> > > >>>> > > I'm not going to block the release on this alone because it is >>>> important >>>> > > for this project to get a first release out soon, but we need to fix >>>> > DL-2. >>>> > > >>>> > > -Flavio >>>> > > >>>> > >> On 15 Nov 2016, at 19:02, Leigh Stewart >>>> >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >> +1 >>>> > >> >>>> > >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Franck Cuny < >>>> franck.c...@gmail.com> >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >>> +1 and I agree to not make DL-2 a blocker. >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Xi Liu >>>> wrote: >>>> > >&
Re: [DISCUSSION] First Release
I've merged all the pull requests that need to be included in 0.4.0 (and both Jenkins and CI builds are green now). Also I moved inactive jiras to 0.5.0. There are a few issues remaining - https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20DL%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%200.4.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC Most of them already have pull requests (but need to be rebased to latest master). So I can merge them. Hopefully I will be able to cut 0.4.0 release in following few days. - Sijie On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > I will start check the jiras that need to be included in 0.4.0 release at > the weekend. If there is any jiras that need to be included in 0.4.0, > please comment in the jira. > > - Sijie > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > >> FYI. >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-81 is created for tracking >> building the process. >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13024 and >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13023 for setting the dists >> for DL. >> >> - Sijie >> >> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: >> >>> Thank you for all the feedbacks. I will drive the release for this >>> version. So that we can have all the procedures documented in the wiki. >>> >>> I created the wiki page here for documenting the procedure: >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DL/Pr >>> eparing+DistributedLog+Releases >>> >>> - Sijie >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Jia Zhai wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> Great to know the commitment of merge twitter's branch. Looking forward >>>> to >>>> see bookkeeper 4.5. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Flavio Junqueira >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > It does make sense, Sijie, thanks for the update. >>>> > >>>> > -Flavio >>>> > >>>> > > On 17 Nov 2016, at 05:12, Sijie Guo wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > Flavio, >>>> > > >>>> > > I totally agreed that not using an official Apache version is not >>>> great >>>> > > for the community. We had a bookkeeper meetup last night. We've >>>> discussed >>>> > > the current situation with the community. We came to a commitment to >>>> > merge >>>> > > Twitter's branch back into bookkeeper 4.5. After that we won't >>>> maintain >>>> > our >>>> > > own branch and switch to 4.5. >>>> > > >>>> > > Hope this make sense. >>>> > > >>>> > > Sijie >>>> > > >>>> > > On Nov 16, 2016 8:04 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > It isn't great that DistributedLog is not using the Apache >>>> BookKeeper >>>> > > release. Essentially anyone using DistributedLog today needs to use >>>> the >>>> > > Twitter branch of BookKeeper, which has diverged from Apache >>>> BookKeeper. >>>> > > I'm sure the changes in the Twitter branch are all great, but I'd >>>> be more >>>> > > comfortable being able to rely on the Apache BookKeeper releases, >>>> which >>>> > are >>>> > > community driven. >>>> > > >>>> > > I'm not going to block the release on this alone because it is >>>> important >>>> > > for this project to get a first release out soon, but we need to fix >>>> > DL-2. >>>> > > >>>> > > -Flavio >>>> > > >>>> > >> On 15 Nov 2016, at 19:02, Leigh Stewart >>>> >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >> +1 >>>> > >> >>>> > >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Franck Cuny < >>>> franck.c...@gmail.com> >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >>> +1 and I agree to not make DL-2 a blocker. >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Xi Liu >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>>> +1 especially on DL-23. >>>> > >>&
Re: [DISCUSSION] First Release
I will start check the jiras that need to be included in 0.4.0 release at the weekend. If there is any jiras that need to be included in 0.4.0, please comment in the jira. - Sijie On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > FYI. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-81 is created for tracking > building the process. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13024 and > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13023 for setting the dists > for DL. > > - Sijie > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > >> Thank you for all the feedbacks. I will drive the release for this >> version. So that we can have all the procedures documented in the wiki. >> >> I created the wiki page here for documenting the procedure: >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DL/ >> Preparing+DistributedLog+Releases >> >> - Sijie >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Jia Zhai wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> Great to know the commitment of merge twitter's branch. Looking forward >>> to >>> see bookkeeper 4.5. >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Flavio Junqueira >>> wrote: >>> >>> > It does make sense, Sijie, thanks for the update. >>> > >>> > -Flavio >>> > >>> > > On 17 Nov 2016, at 05:12, Sijie Guo wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Flavio, >>> > > >>> > > I totally agreed that not using an official Apache version is not >>> great >>> > > for the community. We had a bookkeeper meetup last night. We've >>> discussed >>> > > the current situation with the community. We came to a commitment to >>> > merge >>> > > Twitter's branch back into bookkeeper 4.5. After that we won't >>> maintain >>> > our >>> > > own branch and switch to 4.5. >>> > > >>> > > Hope this make sense. >>> > > >>> > > Sijie >>> > > >>> > > On Nov 16, 2016 8:04 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" wrote: >>> > > >>> > > It isn't great that DistributedLog is not using the Apache BookKeeper >>> > > release. Essentially anyone using DistributedLog today needs to use >>> the >>> > > Twitter branch of BookKeeper, which has diverged from Apache >>> BookKeeper. >>> > > I'm sure the changes in the Twitter branch are all great, but I'd be >>> more >>> > > comfortable being able to rely on the Apache BookKeeper releases, >>> which >>> > are >>> > > community driven. >>> > > >>> > > I'm not going to block the release on this alone because it is >>> important >>> > > for this project to get a first release out soon, but we need to fix >>> > DL-2. >>> > > >>> > > -Flavio >>> > > >>> > >> On 15 Nov 2016, at 19:02, Leigh Stewart >>> >>> > > wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> +1 >>> > >> >>> > >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Franck Cuny >> > >>> > > wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >>> +1 and I agree to not make DL-2 a blocker. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Xi Liu >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >>> > >>>> +1 especially on DL-23. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> - Xi >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Khurrum Nasim < >>> > khurrumnas...@gmail.com> >>> > >>>> wrote: >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>>> +1 (non-binding) >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> I am also interested in participating. >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> - kn >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Sijie Guo >>> wrote: >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>>> I'd like to start the discussion about the first release. There >>> are >>> > >>>>> still a >>> > >>>>>> few discussions and pull requests outstanding. I think we need >>> to &g
Re: [DISCUSSION] First Release
FYI. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-81 is created for tracking building the process. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13024 and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13023 for setting the dists for DL. - Sijie On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > Thank you for all the feedbacks. I will drive the release for this > version. So that we can have all the procedures documented in the wiki. > > I created the wiki page here for documenting the procedure: https://cwiki. > apache.org/confluence/display/DL/Preparing+DistributedLog+Releases > > - Sijie > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Jia Zhai wrote: > >> +1 >> Great to know the commitment of merge twitter's branch. Looking forward to >> see bookkeeper 4.5. >> >> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Flavio Junqueira wrote: >> >> > It does make sense, Sijie, thanks for the update. >> > >> > -Flavio >> > >> > > On 17 Nov 2016, at 05:12, Sijie Guo wrote: >> > > >> > > Flavio, >> > > >> > > I totally agreed that not using an official Apache version is not >> great >> > > for the community. We had a bookkeeper meetup last night. We've >> discussed >> > > the current situation with the community. We came to a commitment to >> > merge >> > > Twitter's branch back into bookkeeper 4.5. After that we won't >> maintain >> > our >> > > own branch and switch to 4.5. >> > > >> > > Hope this make sense. >> > > >> > > Sijie >> > > >> > > On Nov 16, 2016 8:04 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" wrote: >> > > >> > > It isn't great that DistributedLog is not using the Apache BookKeeper >> > > release. Essentially anyone using DistributedLog today needs to use >> the >> > > Twitter branch of BookKeeper, which has diverged from Apache >> BookKeeper. >> > > I'm sure the changes in the Twitter branch are all great, but I'd be >> more >> > > comfortable being able to rely on the Apache BookKeeper releases, >> which >> > are >> > > community driven. >> > > >> > > I'm not going to block the release on this alone because it is >> important >> > > for this project to get a first release out soon, but we need to fix >> > DL-2. >> > > >> > > -Flavio >> > > >> > >> On 15 Nov 2016, at 19:02, Leigh Stewart > > >> > > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> +1 >> > >> >> > >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Franck Cuny >> > > wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> +1 and I agree to not make DL-2 a blocker. >> > >>> >> > >>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Xi Liu >> wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>>> +1 especially on DL-23. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> - Xi >> > >>>> >> > >>>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Khurrum Nasim < >> > khurrumnas...@gmail.com> >> > >>>> wrote: >> > >>>> >> > >>>>> +1 (non-binding) >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> I am also interested in participating. >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> - kn >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Sijie Guo >> wrote: >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>>> I'd like to start the discussion about the first release. There >> are >> > >>>>> still a >> > >>>>>> few discussions and pull requests outstanding. I think we need to >> > >>> pick >> > >>>>> up a >> > >>>>>> few items and cut the first release and then iterate from there. >> > Here >> > >>>> is >> > >>>>> a >> > >>>>>> list of items that I think we should include: >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> - DL-4 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-4>: Repackaging >> > >>>>> namespace >> > >>>>>> to org.apache (the pull request is out and under reviewing) >> > >>>>>> - DL-49 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-49>: support >> > scala >> > >>>>> 2.10 >> > >>>>>> and 2.11 (the review is done, need to be merged) >> > >>>>>> - DL-23 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-23>: Move DL >> to >> > >>>> depend >> > >>>>>> on >> > >>>>>> central maven repo. The main blocker is about the libthrift >> version, >> > >>>>> which >> > >>>>>> is only hosted at twtter's maven repo. There is a pull request >> out. >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> I am kind of thinking to not make DL-2 >> > >>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-2> (using the official >> > >>>>>> bookkeeper >> > >>>>>> version) the blocker for the first release. We can cut a new >> release >> > >>>> once >> > >>>>>> that change is ready. So to decouple the release procedure >> between >> > DL >> > >>>> and >> > >>>>>> BK. >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> Please feel free to add any jiras that you believe it should be >> > >>>> included >> > >>>>> in >> > >>>>>> the first release. >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> Also, is there anyone interested in being the release manager for >> > >>> first >> > >>>>>> release? >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> - Sijie >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> -- >> > >>> -franck >> > >>> >> > >> > >> > >
Re: [DISCUSSION] First Release
Thank you for all the feedbacks. I will drive the release for this version. So that we can have all the procedures documented in the wiki. I created the wiki page here for documenting the procedure: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DL/Preparing+DistributedLog+Releases - Sijie On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Jia Zhai wrote: > +1 > Great to know the commitment of merge twitter's branch. Looking forward to > see bookkeeper 4.5. > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Flavio Junqueira wrote: > > > It does make sense, Sijie, thanks for the update. > > > > -Flavio > > > > > On 17 Nov 2016, at 05:12, Sijie Guo wrote: > > > > > > Flavio, > > > > > > I totally agreed that not using an official Apache version is not > great > > > for the community. We had a bookkeeper meetup last night. We've > discussed > > > the current situation with the community. We came to a commitment to > > merge > > > Twitter's branch back into bookkeeper 4.5. After that we won't maintain > > our > > > own branch and switch to 4.5. > > > > > > Hope this make sense. > > > > > > Sijie > > > > > > On Nov 16, 2016 8:04 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" wrote: > > > > > > It isn't great that DistributedLog is not using the Apache BookKeeper > > > release. Essentially anyone using DistributedLog today needs to use the > > > Twitter branch of BookKeeper, which has diverged from Apache > BookKeeper. > > > I'm sure the changes in the Twitter branch are all great, but I'd be > more > > > comfortable being able to rely on the Apache BookKeeper releases, which > > are > > > community driven. > > > > > > I'm not going to block the release on this alone because it is > important > > > for this project to get a first release out soon, but we need to fix > > DL-2. > > > > > > -Flavio > > > > > >> On 15 Nov 2016, at 19:02, Leigh Stewart > > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> +1 > > >> > > >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Franck Cuny > > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> +1 and I agree to not make DL-2 a blocker. > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Xi Liu > wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> +1 especially on DL-23. > > >>>> > > >>>> - Xi > > >>>> > > >>>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Khurrum Nasim < > > khurrumnas...@gmail.com> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> +1 (non-binding) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I am also interested in participating. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> - kn > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Sijie Guo > wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> I'd like to start the discussion about the first release. There > are > > >>>>> still a > > >>>>>> few discussions and pull requests outstanding. I think we need to > > >>> pick > > >>>>> up a > > >>>>>> few items and cut the first release and then iterate from there. > > Here > > >>>> is > > >>>>> a > > >>>>>> list of items that I think we should include: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> - DL-4 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-4>: Repackaging > > >>>>> namespace > > >>>>>> to org.apache (the pull request is out and under reviewing) > > >>>>>> - DL-49 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-49>: support > > scala > > >>>>> 2.10 > > >>>>>> and 2.11 (the review is done, need to be merged) > > >>>>>> - DL-23 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-23>: Move DL to > > >>>> depend > > >>>>>> on > > >>>>>> central maven repo. The main blocker is about the libthrift > version, > > >>>>> which > > >>>>>> is only hosted at twtter's maven repo. There is a pull request > out. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I am kind of thinking to not make DL-2 > > >>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-2> (using the official > > >>>>>> bookkeeper > > >>>>>> version) the blocker for the first release. We can cut a new > release > > >>>> once > > >>>>>> that change is ready. So to decouple the release procedure between > > DL > > >>>> and > > >>>>>> BK. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Please feel free to add any jiras that you believe it should be > > >>>> included > > >>>>> in > > >>>>>> the first release. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Also, is there anyone interested in being the release manager for > > >>> first > > >>>>>> release? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> - Sijie > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> -franck > > >>> > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSSION] First Release
+1 Great to know the commitment of merge twitter's branch. Looking forward to see bookkeeper 4.5. On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Flavio Junqueira wrote: > It does make sense, Sijie, thanks for the update. > > -Flavio > > > On 17 Nov 2016, at 05:12, Sijie Guo wrote: > > > > Flavio, > > > > I totally agreed that not using an official Apache version is not great > > for the community. We had a bookkeeper meetup last night. We've discussed > > the current situation with the community. We came to a commitment to > merge > > Twitter's branch back into bookkeeper 4.5. After that we won't maintain > our > > own branch and switch to 4.5. > > > > Hope this make sense. > > > > Sijie > > > > On Nov 16, 2016 8:04 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" wrote: > > > > It isn't great that DistributedLog is not using the Apache BookKeeper > > release. Essentially anyone using DistributedLog today needs to use the > > Twitter branch of BookKeeper, which has diverged from Apache BookKeeper. > > I'm sure the changes in the Twitter branch are all great, but I'd be more > > comfortable being able to rely on the Apache BookKeeper releases, which > are > > community driven. > > > > I'm not going to block the release on this alone because it is important > > for this project to get a first release out soon, but we need to fix > DL-2. > > > > -Flavio > > > >> On 15 Nov 2016, at 19:02, Leigh Stewart > > wrote: > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Franck Cuny > > wrote: > >> > >>> +1 and I agree to not make DL-2 a blocker. > >>> > >>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Xi Liu wrote: > >>> > >>>> +1 especially on DL-23. > >>>> > >>>> - Xi > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Khurrum Nasim < > khurrumnas...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> +1 (non-binding) > >>>>> > >>>>> I am also interested in participating. > >>>>> > >>>>> - kn > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I'd like to start the discussion about the first release. There are > >>>>> still a > >>>>>> few discussions and pull requests outstanding. I think we need to > >>> pick > >>>>> up a > >>>>>> few items and cut the first release and then iterate from there. > Here > >>>> is > >>>>> a > >>>>>> list of items that I think we should include: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - DL-4 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-4>: Repackaging > >>>>> namespace > >>>>>> to org.apache (the pull request is out and under reviewing) > >>>>>> - DL-49 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-49>: support > scala > >>>>> 2.10 > >>>>>> and 2.11 (the review is done, need to be merged) > >>>>>> - DL-23 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-23>: Move DL to > >>>> depend > >>>>>> on > >>>>>> central maven repo. The main blocker is about the libthrift version, > >>>>> which > >>>>>> is only hosted at twtter's maven repo. There is a pull request out. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I am kind of thinking to not make DL-2 > >>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-2> (using the official > >>>>>> bookkeeper > >>>>>> version) the blocker for the first release. We can cut a new release > >>>> once > >>>>>> that change is ready. So to decouple the release procedure between > DL > >>>> and > >>>>>> BK. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please feel free to add any jiras that you believe it should be > >>>> included > >>>>> in > >>>>>> the first release. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Also, is there anyone interested in being the release manager for > >>> first > >>>>>> release? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - Sijie > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> -franck > >>> > >
Re: [DISCUSSION] First Release
It does make sense, Sijie, thanks for the update. -Flavio > On 17 Nov 2016, at 05:12, Sijie Guo wrote: > > Flavio, > > I totally agreed that not using an official Apache version is not great > for the community. We had a bookkeeper meetup last night. We've discussed > the current situation with the community. We came to a commitment to merge > Twitter's branch back into bookkeeper 4.5. After that we won't maintain our > own branch and switch to 4.5. > > Hope this make sense. > > Sijie > > On Nov 16, 2016 8:04 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" wrote: > > It isn't great that DistributedLog is not using the Apache BookKeeper > release. Essentially anyone using DistributedLog today needs to use the > Twitter branch of BookKeeper, which has diverged from Apache BookKeeper. > I'm sure the changes in the Twitter branch are all great, but I'd be more > comfortable being able to rely on the Apache BookKeeper releases, which are > community driven. > > I'm not going to block the release on this alone because it is important > for this project to get a first release out soon, but we need to fix DL-2. > > -Flavio > >> On 15 Nov 2016, at 19:02, Leigh Stewart > wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Franck Cuny > wrote: >> >>> +1 and I agree to not make DL-2 a blocker. >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Xi Liu wrote: >>> >>>> +1 especially on DL-23. >>>> >>>> - Xi >>>> >>>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Khurrum Nasim >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>>> >>>>> I am also interested in participating. >>>>> >>>>> - kn >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to start the discussion about the first release. There are >>>>> still a >>>>>> few discussions and pull requests outstanding. I think we need to >>> pick >>>>> up a >>>>>> few items and cut the first release and then iterate from there. Here >>>> is >>>>> a >>>>>> list of items that I think we should include: >>>>>> >>>>>> - DL-4 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-4>: Repackaging >>>>> namespace >>>>>> to org.apache (the pull request is out and under reviewing) >>>>>> - DL-49 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-49>: support scala >>>>> 2.10 >>>>>> and 2.11 (the review is done, need to be merged) >>>>>> - DL-23 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-23>: Move DL to >>>> depend >>>>>> on >>>>>> central maven repo. The main blocker is about the libthrift version, >>>>> which >>>>>> is only hosted at twtter's maven repo. There is a pull request out. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am kind of thinking to not make DL-2 >>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-2> (using the official >>>>>> bookkeeper >>>>>> version) the blocker for the first release. We can cut a new release >>>> once >>>>>> that change is ready. So to decouple the release procedure between DL >>>> and >>>>>> BK. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please feel free to add any jiras that you believe it should be >>>> included >>>>> in >>>>>> the first release. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, is there anyone interested in being the release manager for >>> first >>>>>> release? >>>>>> >>>>>> - Sijie >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -franck >>>
Re: [DISCUSSION] First Release
+1 On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Leigh Stewart wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Franck Cuny > wrote: > > > +1 and I agree to not make DL-2 a blocker. > > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Xi Liu wrote: > > > > > +1 especially on DL-23. > > > > > > - Xi > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Khurrum Nasim < > khurrumnas...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > > > I am also interested in participating. > > > > > > > > - kn > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start the discussion about the first release. There are > > > > still a > > > > > few discussions and pull requests outstanding. I think we need to > > pick > > > > up a > > > > > few items and cut the first release and then iterate from there. > Here > > > is > > > > a > > > > > list of items that I think we should include: > > > > > > > > > > - DL-4 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-4>: Repackaging > > > > namespace > > > > > to org.apache (the pull request is out and under reviewing) > > > > > - DL-49 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-49>: support > scala > > > > 2.10 > > > > > and 2.11 (the review is done, need to be merged) > > > > > - DL-23 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-23>: Move DL to > > > depend > > > > > on > > > > > central maven repo. The main blocker is about the libthrift > version, > > > > which > > > > > is only hosted at twtter's maven repo. There is a pull request out. > > > > > > > > > > I am kind of thinking to not make DL-2 > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-2> (using the official > > > > > bookkeeper > > > > > version) the blocker for the first release. We can cut a new > release > > > once > > > > > that change is ready. So to decouple the release procedure between > DL > > > and > > > > > BK. > > > > > > > > > > Please feel free to add any jiras that you believe it should be > > > included > > > > in > > > > > the first release. > > > > > > > > > > Also, is there anyone interested in being the release manager for > > first > > > > > release? > > > > > > > > > > - Sijie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -franck > > >
Re: [DISCUSSION] First Release
Flavio, I totally agreed that not using an official Apache version is not great for the community. We had a bookkeeper meetup last night. We've discussed the current situation with the community. We came to a commitment to merge Twitter's branch back into bookkeeper 4.5. After that we won't maintain our own branch and switch to 4.5. Hope this make sense. Sijie On Nov 16, 2016 8:04 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" wrote: It isn't great that DistributedLog is not using the Apache BookKeeper release. Essentially anyone using DistributedLog today needs to use the Twitter branch of BookKeeper, which has diverged from Apache BookKeeper. I'm sure the changes in the Twitter branch are all great, but I'd be more comfortable being able to rely on the Apache BookKeeper releases, which are community driven. I'm not going to block the release on this alone because it is important for this project to get a first release out soon, but we need to fix DL-2. -Flavio > On 15 Nov 2016, at 19:02, Leigh Stewart wrote: > > +1 > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Franck Cuny wrote: > >> +1 and I agree to not make DL-2 a blocker. >> >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Xi Liu wrote: >> >>> +1 especially on DL-23. >>> >>> - Xi >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Khurrum Nasim >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>> >>>> I am also interested in participating. >>>> >>>> - kn >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'd like to start the discussion about the first release. There are >>>> still a >>>>> few discussions and pull requests outstanding. I think we need to >> pick >>>> up a >>>>> few items and cut the first release and then iterate from there. Here >>> is >>>> a >>>>> list of items that I think we should include: >>>>> >>>>> - DL-4 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-4>: Repackaging >>>> namespace >>>>> to org.apache (the pull request is out and under reviewing) >>>>> - DL-49 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-49>: support scala >>>> 2.10 >>>>> and 2.11 (the review is done, need to be merged) >>>>> - DL-23 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-23>: Move DL to >>> depend >>>>> on >>>>> central maven repo. The main blocker is about the libthrift version, >>>> which >>>>> is only hosted at twtter's maven repo. There is a pull request out. >>>>> >>>>> I am kind of thinking to not make DL-2 >>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-2> (using the official >>>>> bookkeeper >>>>> version) the blocker for the first release. We can cut a new release >>> once >>>>> that change is ready. So to decouple the release procedure between DL >>> and >>>>> BK. >>>>> >>>>> Please feel free to add any jiras that you believe it should be >>> included >>>> in >>>>> the first release. >>>>> >>>>> Also, is there anyone interested in being the release manager for >> first >>>>> release? >>>>> >>>>> - Sijie >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> -franck >>
Re: [DISCUSSION] First Release
It isn't great that DistributedLog is not using the Apache BookKeeper release. Essentially anyone using DistributedLog today needs to use the Twitter branch of BookKeeper, which has diverged from Apache BookKeeper. I'm sure the changes in the Twitter branch are all great, but I'd be more comfortable being able to rely on the Apache BookKeeper releases, which are community driven. I'm not going to block the release on this alone because it is important for this project to get a first release out soon, but we need to fix DL-2. -Flavio > On 15 Nov 2016, at 19:02, Leigh Stewart wrote: > > +1 > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Franck Cuny wrote: > >> +1 and I agree to not make DL-2 a blocker. >> >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Xi Liu wrote: >> >>> +1 especially on DL-23. >>> >>> - Xi >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Khurrum Nasim >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>> >>>> I am also interested in participating. >>>> >>>> - kn >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'd like to start the discussion about the first release. There are >>>> still a >>>>> few discussions and pull requests outstanding. I think we need to >> pick >>>> up a >>>>> few items and cut the first release and then iterate from there. Here >>> is >>>> a >>>>> list of items that I think we should include: >>>>> >>>>> - DL-4 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-4>: Repackaging >>>> namespace >>>>> to org.apache (the pull request is out and under reviewing) >>>>> - DL-49 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-49>: support scala >>>> 2.10 >>>>> and 2.11 (the review is done, need to be merged) >>>>> - DL-23 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-23>: Move DL to >>> depend >>>>> on >>>>> central maven repo. The main blocker is about the libthrift version, >>>> which >>>>> is only hosted at twtter's maven repo. There is a pull request out. >>>>> >>>>> I am kind of thinking to not make DL-2 >>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-2> (using the official >>>>> bookkeeper >>>>> version) the blocker for the first release. We can cut a new release >>> once >>>>> that change is ready. So to decouple the release procedure between DL >>> and >>>>> BK. >>>>> >>>>> Please feel free to add any jiras that you believe it should be >>> included >>>> in >>>>> the first release. >>>>> >>>>> Also, is there anyone interested in being the release manager for >> first >>>>> release? >>>>> >>>>> - Sijie >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> -franck >>
Re: [DISCUSSION] First Release
+1 On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Franck Cuny wrote: > +1 and I agree to not make DL-2 a blocker. > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Xi Liu wrote: > > > +1 especially on DL-23. > > > > - Xi > > > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Khurrum Nasim > > wrote: > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > I am also interested in participating. > > > > > > - kn > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > > > > > > > I'd like to start the discussion about the first release. There are > > > still a > > > > few discussions and pull requests outstanding. I think we need to > pick > > > up a > > > > few items and cut the first release and then iterate from there. Here > > is > > > a > > > > list of items that I think we should include: > > > > > > > > - DL-4 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-4>: Repackaging > > > namespace > > > > to org.apache (the pull request is out and under reviewing) > > > > - DL-49 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-49>: support scala > > > 2.10 > > > > and 2.11 (the review is done, need to be merged) > > > > - DL-23 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-23>: Move DL to > > depend > > > > on > > > > central maven repo. The main blocker is about the libthrift version, > > > which > > > > is only hosted at twtter's maven repo. There is a pull request out. > > > > > > > > I am kind of thinking to not make DL-2 > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-2> (using the official > > > > bookkeeper > > > > version) the blocker for the first release. We can cut a new release > > once > > > > that change is ready. So to decouple the release procedure between DL > > and > > > > BK. > > > > > > > > Please feel free to add any jiras that you believe it should be > > included > > > in > > > > the first release. > > > > > > > > Also, is there anyone interested in being the release manager for > first > > > > release? > > > > > > > > - Sijie > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > -franck >
Re: [DISCUSSION] First Release
+1 and I agree to not make DL-2 a blocker. On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Xi Liu wrote: > +1 especially on DL-23. > > - Xi > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Khurrum Nasim > wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > I am also interested in participating. > > > > - kn > > > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > > > > > I'd like to start the discussion about the first release. There are > > still a > > > few discussions and pull requests outstanding. I think we need to pick > > up a > > > few items and cut the first release and then iterate from there. Here > is > > a > > > list of items that I think we should include: > > > > > > - DL-4 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-4>: Repackaging > > namespace > > > to org.apache (the pull request is out and under reviewing) > > > - DL-49 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-49>: support scala > > 2.10 > > > and 2.11 (the review is done, need to be merged) > > > - DL-23 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-23>: Move DL to > depend > > > on > > > central maven repo. The main blocker is about the libthrift version, > > which > > > is only hosted at twtter's maven repo. There is a pull request out. > > > > > > I am kind of thinking to not make DL-2 > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-2> (using the official > > > bookkeeper > > > version) the blocker for the first release. We can cut a new release > once > > > that change is ready. So to decouple the release procedure between DL > and > > > BK. > > > > > > Please feel free to add any jiras that you believe it should be > included > > in > > > the first release. > > > > > > Also, is there anyone interested in being the release manager for first > > > release? > > > > > > - Sijie > > > > > > -- -franck
Re: [DISCUSSION] First Release
+1 especially on DL-23. - Xi On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Khurrum Nasim wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > I am also interested in participating. > > - kn > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > > > I'd like to start the discussion about the first release. There are > still a > > few discussions and pull requests outstanding. I think we need to pick > up a > > few items and cut the first release and then iterate from there. Here is > a > > list of items that I think we should include: > > > > - DL-4 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-4>: Repackaging > namespace > > to org.apache (the pull request is out and under reviewing) > > - DL-49 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-49>: support scala > 2.10 > > and 2.11 (the review is done, need to be merged) > > - DL-23 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-23>: Move DL to depend > > on > > central maven repo. The main blocker is about the libthrift version, > which > > is only hosted at twtter's maven repo. There is a pull request out. > > > > I am kind of thinking to not make DL-2 > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-2> (using the official > > bookkeeper > > version) the blocker for the first release. We can cut a new release once > > that change is ready. So to decouple the release procedure between DL and > > BK. > > > > Please feel free to add any jiras that you believe it should be included > in > > the first release. > > > > Also, is there anyone interested in being the release manager for first > > release? > > > > - Sijie > > >
Re: [DISCUSSION] First Release
+1 (non-binding) I am also interested in participating. - kn On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > I'd like to start the discussion about the first release. There are still a > few discussions and pull requests outstanding. I think we need to pick up a > few items and cut the first release and then iterate from there. Here is a > list of items that I think we should include: > > - DL-4 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-4>: Repackaging namespace > to org.apache (the pull request is out and under reviewing) > - DL-49 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-49>: support scala 2.10 > and 2.11 (the review is done, need to be merged) > - DL-23 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-23>: Move DL to depend > on > central maven repo. The main blocker is about the libthrift version, which > is only hosted at twtter's maven repo. There is a pull request out. > > I am kind of thinking to not make DL-2 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-2> (using the official > bookkeeper > version) the blocker for the first release. We can cut a new release once > that change is ready. So to decouple the release procedure between DL and > BK. > > Please feel free to add any jiras that you believe it should be included in > the first release. > > Also, is there anyone interested in being the release manager for first > release? > > - Sijie >
[DISCUSSION] First Release
I'd like to start the discussion about the first release. There are still a few discussions and pull requests outstanding. I think we need to pick up a few items and cut the first release and then iterate from there. Here is a list of items that I think we should include: - DL-4 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-4>: Repackaging namespace to org.apache (the pull request is out and under reviewing) - DL-49 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-49>: support scala 2.10 and 2.11 (the review is done, need to be merged) - DL-23 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-23>: Move DL to depend on central maven repo. The main blocker is about the libthrift version, which is only hosted at twtter's maven repo. There is a pull request out. I am kind of thinking to not make DL-2 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-2> (using the official bookkeeper version) the blocker for the first release. We can cut a new release once that change is ready. So to decouple the release procedure between DL and BK. Please feel free to add any jiras that you believe it should be included in the first release. Also, is there anyone interested in being the release manager for first release? - Sijie
Re: First release?
I was setting a 3-month release for 0.4.0. But I agreed with Flavio. It might be worth releasing a first apache release ASAP after sorting out any issues related to apache. - Sijie On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Flavio Junqueira wrote: > No pressure, really, but I was wondering what the plan for the first > release is. Better to do a first release sooner than later. You already > have a working system so it is mostly about sorting out any issues related > to releasing in Apache. > > -Flavio
First release?
No pressure, really, but I was wondering what the plan for the first release is. Better to do a first release sooner than later. You already have a working system so it is mostly about sorting out any issues related to releasing in Apache. -Flavio
