+1 to creating a 1.10.0 derived from 1.9 that bumps the Java
requirement to 8, and doing so instead of releasing 1.9.4.
I think the java version bump will help with maintaining patches that
can be more easily backported to 1.x. If this vote passes, I will
advocate for 1.10 to be used as the LTS in
As suggested in the LTS discussion ([LAZY][VOTE] A basic, but concrete, LTS
proposal), I'm breaking this out to as a separate thread to keep the topic
distinct.
The proposal - I would like to start the formal release process for a 1.10
version that would change the java language level to java 8.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:46 AM Keith Turner wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:28 AM Josh Elser wrote:
> >
> > Seems fine to me.
> >
> > Any expectations on how upgrades work within an LTS release? How about
> > across LTS releases?
>
> The behavior I would like to see is that for any releas
I see your point about 1.10 and the difficulty of upgrading to 2.x and
Hadoop 3. I would be in favor of doing a release of 1.10 and releasing
that as the first LTS to replace 1.9 if we limit the changes between
1.9 and 1.10 to the following:
1. Update Java minimum requirements to Java 8
2. Make Ha
Another dimension to this discussion that I'd like to address is the
provision for a 1.10 version. In fact, I lean towards having 1.10
nominated as the pre-2.x LTS version instead of a 1.9.x. I am in favor of
the basic LTS proposal, but I think that additional accommodations to ease
the pre-2.x t
I am in favor of the LTS release schedule. I find that having a more
structured but still flexible plan for releases benefits both the users of
accumulo and developers as it gives us more defined trajectory on how to
reach certain goals.
My only issue with some LTS release projects is that sometim
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:28 AM Josh Elser wrote:
>
> Seems fine to me.
>
> Any expectations on how upgrades work within an LTS release? How about
> across LTS releases?
The behavior I would like to see is that for any release you can
always upgrade from the previous release. For LTS releases y
Seems fine to me.
Any expectations on how upgrades work within an LTS release? How about
across LTS releases?
Some specific situations to mull over:
* Can rolling upgrade in an LTS release (to new patch version) with no
downtime. (e.g. 1.9.1 to 1.9.3)
* Can any LTS release (1.9.1) be guarant
+1
I am in favor of the LTS idea because I think it makes it more
efficient for everyone to easily come together and focus their efforts
in the same direction for the benefit of everyone.
I think this is a really good starting plan for LTS. Overtime we will
probably find issues with the plan and
Welcome Arvind. I would be interested in reading about your
experiences with Accumulo on Azure.
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 7:21 PM Arvind Shyamsundar
wrote:
>
> Hello!
> I'm Arvind Shyamsundar and I work at Microsoft. I'm located in Redmond, WA.
> Along with a few colleagues, we have been working o
10 matches
Mail list logo
