Re: [VOTE] add mvn dependency:analyze to release process

note that https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9991 is probably-doomed attempt to have consistent dependencies at least within the hadoop-core, if there are issues there don't be afraid to get involved On 13 November 2013 17:18, Billie Rinaldi wrote: > This vote passes with the followin

Re: Review Request 15499: ACCUMULO-1852 - NativeMapIT on OS X

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15499/#review28867 --- Ship it! This does fix NativeMapIT for me on Mavericks+Java7, altho

Review Request 15517: ACCUMULO-1892 examples.simple.RandomBatchWriter might not write the specified number of rowids

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15517/ --- Review request for accumulo. Bugs: ACCUMULO-1892 https://issues.apache.org/

Review Request 15518: ACCUMULO-1878 handle error conditions in example tests.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15518/ --- Review request for accumulo. Bugs: ACCUMULO-1878 https://issues.apache.org/

Re: Review Request 15482: ACCUMULO-1889 ZooKeeperInstance close method should mark instance closed.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15482/#review28871 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Bill Slacum On Nov. 13, 2013, 9:35 p.m., Sea

Re: Review Request 15518: ACCUMULO-1878 handle error conditions in example tests.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15518/ --- (Updated Nov. 14, 2013, 4:52 p.m.) Review request for accumulo. Bugs: ACCUMUL

Re: Review Request 15482: ACCUMULO-1889 ZooKeeperInstance close method should mark instance closed.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15482/#review28874 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Ryan Fishel On Nov. 13, 2013, 9:35 p.m., Sea

[VOTE] Deprecate mock in 1.6.0

Should we deprecate mock accumulo for 1.6.0? This was considered [1] for 1.5.0. I started thinking about this because I never added conditional writer to mock. [1] : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-878

Re: [VOTE] Deprecate mock in 1.6.0

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Keith Turner wrote: > Should we deprecate mock accumulo for 1.6.0? This was considered [1] for > 1.5.0. I started thinking about this because I never added conditional > writer to mock. > > [1] : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-878 > Would depre

Re: [VOTE] Deprecate mock in 1.6.0

+1 Been bitten by goofy/half-implemented stuff in Mock too many times. I'd rather see effort placed into making MAC a reliable and fast testing mechanism than helping Mock limp along On 11/14/13, 12:41 PM, Keith Turner wrote: Should we deprecate mock accumulo for 1.6.0? This was considered

Review Request 15538: ACCUMULO-1893 keep tests from attempting to write to the root of HDFS.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15538/ --- Review request for accumulo and Eric Newton. Bugs: ACCUMULO-1893 https://is

Re: [VOTE] Deprecate mock in 1.6.0

+1 On Nov 14, 2013 3:42 PM, "Keith Turner" wrote: > Should we deprecate mock accumulo for 1.6.0? This was considered [1] for > 1.5.0. I started thinking about this because I never added conditional > writer to mock. > > [1] : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-878 >

Re: [VOTE] Deprecate mock in 1.6.0

+1 (non-binding) Christopher's comment on -878 [1] echoes my thinking. For me, "mock" means "unit tests", and I'd rather use a mock framework (Easymock, Mockito, whatever) than a running cluster (however lightweight) in unit tests. [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-878?focusedCo

Re: Review Request 15538: ACCUMULO-1893 keep tests from attempting to write to the root of HDFS.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15538/#review28898 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Ryan Fishel On Nov. 14, 2013, 8:53 p.m., Sea

Re: Review Request 15166: ACCUMULO-802 Tablespaces

> On Nov. 1, 2013, 6:19 p.m., John Vines wrote: > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/client/TableNamespaceExistsException.java, > > line 24 > > > > > > If we make TableNamespaceExistException extend Accumulo

Re: [VOTE] Deprecate mock in 1.6.0

+1 On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Keith Turner wrote: > Should we deprecate mock accumulo for 1.6.0? This was considered [1] for > 1.5.0. I started thinking about this because I never added conditional > writer to mock. > > [1] : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-878 >

Re: Review Request 15538: ACCUMULO-1893 keep tests from attempting to write to the root of HDFS.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15538/#review28905 --- Ship it! (non-binding) The diff encompasses the changes that were m

Re: Review Request 15166: ACCUMULO-802 Tablespaces

> On Nov. 1, 2013, 6:19 p.m., John Vines wrote: > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/security/TableNamespacePermission.java, > > line 26 > > > > > > I think we also need BULK_IMPORT for bulk importing to nam

Re: Review Request 15518: ACCUMULO-1878 handle error conditions in example tests.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15518/#review28907 --- src/examples/simple/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/examples/simp

Re: Review Request 15518: ACCUMULO-1878 handle error conditions in example tests.

> On Nov. 14, 2013, 9:55 p.m., Bill Havanki wrote: > > src/examples/simple/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/examples/simple/client/RandomBatchScanner.java, > > line 242 > > > > > > If the "cold" run above fails, then

Re: Review Request 15517: ACCUMULO-1892 examples.simple.RandomBatchWriter might not write the specified number of rowids

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15517/#review28912 --- src/examples/simple/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/examples/simp

Re: Review Request 15517: ACCUMULO-1892 examples.simple.RandomBatchWriter might not write the specified number of rowids

> On Nov. 14, 2013, 10:03 p.m., Bill Havanki wrote: > > src/examples/simple/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/examples/simple/client/RandomBatchWriter.java, > > line 156 > > > > > > I believe this will lead to an infi

Re: Review Request 15499: ACCUMULO-1852 - NativeMapIT on OS X

> On Nov. 14, 2013, 9:24 a.m., Michael Berman wrote: > > This does fix NativeMapIT for me on Mavericks+Java7, although it doesn't > > address the `make test` issue in nativeMap itself. Still, seems like an > > improvement, so, ship it. Thanks for checking on me. You'll have to explain to me t

Re: Review Request 15499: ACCUMULO-1852 - NativeMapIT on OS X

> On Nov. 14, 2013, 2:24 p.m., Michael Berman wrote: > > This does fix NativeMapIT for me on Mavericks+Java7, although it doesn't > > address the `make test` issue in nativeMap itself. Still, seems like an > > improvement, so, ship it. > > Bill Havanki wrote: > Thanks for checking on me.

Re: Review Request 15517: ACCUMULO-1892 examples.simple.RandomBatchWriter might not write the specified number of rowids

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15517/ --- (Updated Nov. 14, 2013, 10:23 p.m.) Review request for accumulo. Changes

Re: [VOTE] Deprecate mock in 1.6.0

Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity. On Nov 14, 2013 2:49 PM, "Josh Elser" wrote: > > +1 > > Been bitten by goofy/half-implemented stuff in Mock too many times. I'd rather see effort placed into making MAC a reliable and fast testing mechanism than helping Mock limp along -1

Re: [VOTE] Deprecate mock in 1.6.0

Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity. On Nov 14, 2013 2:49 PM, "Josh Elser" wrote: > > +1 > > Been bitten by goofy/half-implemented stuff in Mock too many times. I'd rather see effort placed into making MAC a reliable and fast testing mechanism than helping Mock limp along -1 W

Re: [VOTE] Deprecate mock in 1.6.0

On 11/14/13, 2:41 PM, John Vines wrote: Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity. On Nov 14, 2013 2:49 PM, "Josh Elser" wrote: +1 Been bitten by goofy/half-implemented stuff in Mock too many times. I'd rather see effort placed into making MAC a reliable and fast testing mechan

Re: [VOTE] Deprecate mock in 1.6.0

Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity. On Nov 14, 2013 4:46 PM, "Josh Elser" wrote: > > On 11/14/13, 2:41 PM, John Vines wrote: >> >> Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity. >> On Nov 14, 2013 2:49 PM, "Josh Elser" wrote: >>> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> Been bitten by go

Re: [VOTE] Deprecate mock in 1.6.0

+1 I'd prefer we get a bit more rigorous about the distinction between integration testing and unit testing. MockAccumulo walks that line too closely, and I think it encourages writing bad tests, with the risk that code relies on incorrect mock behavior. I'd prefer to put some effort into making

Re: [VOTE] Deprecate mock in 1.6.0

+0 - what's the number if I'm undecided? I'd prefer to see one uber-cool one testing mechanism instead of multiples. On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:54 PM, John Vines wrote: > Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity. > On Nov 14, 2013 4:46 PM, "Josh Elser" wrote: > > > > On 11/14/13,

Re: [VOTE] Deprecate mock in 1.6.0

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:54 PM, John Vines wrote: > Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity. > On Nov 14, 2013 4:46 PM, "Josh Elser" wrote: > > > > On 11/14/13, 2:41 PM, John Vines wrote: > >> > >> Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity. > >> On Nov 14, 2013 2:4

Native

All- There's been a bit of spam related to native maps lately (reviewboard noise, extra related tickets, patches). I'm aware of some issues related to native maps, and I intend to fix them ASAP. Specifically, there's 3 general problems I'm aware of: 1) the way we're finding/loading native maps is

Re: Review Request 15499: ACCUMULO-1852 - NativeMapIT on OS X

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15499/#review28925 --- This is an issue because the way we find native maps is fundamentall

Re: Review Request 15538: ACCUMULO-1893 keep tests from attempting to write to the root of HDFS.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15538/#review28926 --- This patch is obsoleted by the work done on ACCUMULO-1599 - Christo

Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch

The main thing is that I would not want to see an ACCUMULO-1790 *without* ACCUMULO-1795. Having 1792 alone would be insufficient for me. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:29 AM, Sean Busbey wr

Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:14 PM, William Slacum < > wilhelm.von.cl...@accumulo.net> wrote: > >> The language of ACCUMULO-1795 indicated that an acceptable state was >> something that wasn't binary compatible. That's my #1 thing to avoid. >> >>

Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Christopher wrote: > The main thing is that I would not want to see an ACCUMULO-1790 > *without* ACCUMULO-1795. Having 1792 alone would be insufficient for > me. > > That is precisely the intention of ACCUMULO-1790. All of the subtasks (including ACCUMULO-1792 and

Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch

Nope, I think we're on the same page now. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Christopher wrote: > >> The main thing is that I would not want to see an ACCUMULO-1790 >> *without* ACCUMULO-

Re: Review Request 15482: ACCUMULO-1889 ZooKeeperInstance close method should mark instance closed.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15482/#review28930 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Christopher Tubbs On Nov. 13, 2013, 4:35 p.m

ReviewBoard

3 things: #1 ReviewBoard has been really buggy lately. Has anybody else noticed this? Examples: errors when publishing a review, but review still gets published, or moving to a second page on a diff, during a review, but getting an error and losing your unpublished comments from the previous page

Re: ReviewBoard

bq. getting an error and losing your unpublished comments from the previous page. This happened to me recently. I refreshed the previous page and got my comments back. Cheers On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Christopher wrote: > 3 things: > > #1 > ReviewBoard has been really buggy lately. Has

Re: Review Request 15499: ACCUMULO-1852 - NativeMapIT on OS X

> On Nov. 14, 2013, 7:05 p.m., Christopher Tubbs wrote: > > This is an issue because the way we find native maps is fundamentally > > broken in ways that limit packaging and deployment of native maps to a > > target system. This patch is insufficient to address all those issues. I > > already

Re: ReviewBoard

Same; I've actually seen both cases. It's a bit unpredictable. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > bq. getting an error and losing your unpublished comments from the previous > page. > > This happened to me recently. I refreshe