Re: [DISCUSS] Majority voting without prior discussion

We should not require an explicit discussion period prior to a majority vote, especially in our bylaws. Discussion and conflict resolution should happen as a part of our normal community interactions. If these things are not already happening, a mandated warm up period isn't going to fix that. Proc

Re: [DISCUSS] Dev branches reflecting minor/major versions, not bugfixes

I'm thinking the low-impact ones aren't really worth releasing a bugfix version for 1.6.1. They can be rolled up and included in a minor release. I figure 1.6.1 can wait until we find a "you really should patch this if you're using 1.6.0" kind of bug, vs. the "this isn't serious, but you might find

Re: [DISCUSS] Dev branches reflecting minor/major versions, not bugfixes

SGTM. Looks like there aren't currently any fixes of much substance for 1.6.1 presently, but there are a few that would make for a very-low impact 1.6.1, and a good 1.5.2 which also includes the fallout tickets shortly after 1.5.1. Timeframe looks good to me too. If we can get that reduced tes

[DISCUSS] Dev branches reflecting minor/major versions, not bugfixes

Accumulo developers: As part of our transition to better versioning standards, and more regular releases, with better release planning, I was thinking that our development branches should generally reflect an anticipated minor/major release version, and not an expected bugfix version. It seems to

Re: [DISCUSS] packaging our dependencies

In general, I think this is reasonable... especially because Hadoop Client stabilizes things a bit. On the other hand, things get really complicated with dependencies in the pom (somewhat complicated), and packaged dependencies (more complicated), when we're talking about supporting both Hadoop 1 a

[DISCUSS] packaging our dependencies

ACCUMULO-2786 has brought up the issue of what dependencies we bring with Accumulo rather than depend on the environment providing[1]. Christopher explains our extant reasoning thus > The precedent has been: if vanilla Apache Hadoop provides it in its bin tarball, we don't need to. I'd like us t

Re: Review Request 21043: ACCUMULO-1691 Update Thrift to 0.9.1

> On May 9, 2014, 5:19 p.m., Sean Busbey wrote: > > which branch is this targeting? > > Sean Busbey wrote: > nm. found 1.7.0 on ticket > > Christopher Tubbs wrote: > The patch is a patch on 1.6.0 tag, and should apply cleanly to > 1.6.1-SNAPSHOT or master right now. I'd like to target

Re: Review Request 21043: ACCUMULO-1691 Update Thrift to 0.9.1

> On May 9, 2014, 5:23 p.m., Sean Busbey wrote: > > server/base/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/util/CustomNonBlockingServer.java, > > lines 36-38 > > > > > > nit: whitespace > > Christopher Tubbs wrote: >

Re: Review Request 21043: ACCUMULO-1691 Update Thrift to 0.9.1

> On May 9, 2014, 5:46 p.m., Sean Busbey wrote: > > I don't see any tests to cover the non-blocking server. Could we add > > something? > > Christopher Tubbs wrote: > We already have comprehensive test coverage of the thrift server, from > all of our RPC calls. What additional coverage do

Re: Review Request 21043: ACCUMULO-1691 Update Thrift to 0.9.1

> On May 9, 2014, 5:19 p.m., Sean Busbey wrote: > > which branch is this targeting? > > Sean Busbey wrote: > nm. found 1.7.0 on ticket The patch is a patch on 1.6.0 tag, and should apply cleanly to 1.6.1-SNAPSHOT or master right now. I'd like to target this fix to a minor release after 1.

Re: Review Request 21043: ACCUMULO-1691 Update Thrift to 0.9.1

> On May 9, 2014, 9:46 p.m., Sean Busbey wrote: > > I don't see any tests to cover the non-blocking server. Could we add > > something? > > Christopher Tubbs wrote: > We already have comprehensive test coverage of the thrift server, from > all of our RPC calls. What additional coverage do

Re: Review Request 21043: ACCUMULO-1691 Update Thrift to 0.9.1

> On May 9, 2014, 9:23 p.m., Sean Busbey wrote: > > server/base/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/util/CustomNonBlockingServer.java, > > lines 36-38 > > > > > > nit: whitespace > > Christopher Tubbs wrote: >

Re: Review Request 21043: ACCUMULO-1691 Update Thrift to 0.9.1

> On May 9, 2014, 9:19 p.m., Sean Busbey wrote: > > which branch is this targeting? > > Sean Busbey wrote: > nm. found 1.7.0 on ticket > > Christopher Tubbs wrote: > The patch is a patch on 1.6.0 tag, and should apply cleanly to > 1.6.1-SNAPSHOT or master right now. I'd like to target

Re: Review Request 21043: ACCUMULO-1691 Update Thrift to 0.9.1

> On May 9, 2014, 5:46 p.m., Sean Busbey wrote: > > I don't see any tests to cover the non-blocking server. Could we add > > something? We already have comprehensive test coverage of the thrift server, from all of our RPC calls. What additional coverage do you think is needed? For my purposes

Re: Review Request 21043: ACCUMULO-1691 Update Thrift to 0.9.1

> On May 9, 2014, 5:23 p.m., Sean Busbey wrote: > > server/base/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/util/CustomNonBlockingServer.java, > > lines 36-38 > > > > > > nit: whitespace This is introduced by a known iss

[DISCUSS] DRAFT End of Life for Accumulo 1.4

Presented for feedback / discussion: draft ANNOUNCE message for the user@accumulo list. I think the Apache release rules prevent me including language like "here's where you can get the unreleased work to date" or "you should download patches from jira and apply them" -- Accumulo users,

Re: [ANNOUNCE] End of Life for Accumulo 1.4 - developer details

For the very few JIRA issues that were marked as "Fixed" for 1.4.6 (had commits in SCM under the 1.4-development-closed tag), I also removed the 1.4.6 version number from, since that version doesn't exist and is not expected to exist, and it would be confusing to look at a ticket marked as fixed fo

Re: [DISCUSS] Setting 1.4 versions to "archive" in Jira

Unfortunately, I think this list strips attachments, so the IRC transcript didn't get attached. Personally, I think it's probably okay to archive 1.4.0-1.4.3 now, and leave 1.4.4 and 1.4.5 available for filing bugs against. If somebody is using 1.4.0-1.4.3, we should be encouraging them to update

Review Request 21282: ACCUMULO-2791 Downgrade commons-codec to match that provided by Hadoop.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/21282/ --- Review request for accumulo. Bugs: ACCUMULO-2791 https://issues.apache.org/

[DISCUSS] Setting 1.4 versions to "archive" in Jira

Hey Folks! Jira uses the notation of "archived" to mean that a version is no longer in active use. The status means that a given version no longer autocompletes and can not be used when editing tickets. Earlier there was a brief discussion on IRC about the matter (attached as a log), and I wanted

Re: Review Request 21043: ACCUMULO-1691 Update Thrift to 0.9.1

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/21043/#review42612 --- I don't see any tests to cover the non-blocking server. Could we add