The report has been submitted with Dan's edits - thanks everyone. For
reference, the report as filed is included below (note: formatting may be
off because of cut-n-paste differences from the Apache reporting tool.
Ed Coleman
--- begin submitted text ---
## Description:
The mission of Apache
of
the final report when submitted.
Ed Coleman --- begin report text from report tool ---
## Description:
The mission of Apache Accumulo is the creation and maintenance of software
related to a robust, scalable, distributed key/value store with cell-based
access control and customizable server-side
wrote:
> >
> > > I'm fine with leaving it as-is, like I said, was just curious.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 3:33 PM Ed Coleman wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't recall mentioning them at all. But the access library seems
> > > > signifi
ember).
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 3:20 PM Ed Coleman wrote:
>
> > "Just curious why the Accumulo Access library mentions is in "Other".
> >
> > It was an arbitrary decision on my part. I wanted to make sure that it
> > was noted as an achievement / pr
to "Other" because it's a
> sub-project (is that what would happen to testing, docker, etc.)?
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 10:34 AM Ed Coleman wrote:
>
> > The Accumulo community decided to draft the Apache community reports on the
> > Accumulo dev list – and this is a draf
ps change the last sentence to one of the following:
>
> We continue to use the mailing list for official Apache business and it
> remains a channel
> for users to contact us.
>
> or
>
> We continue to use the mailing list for official Apache business and as a
> c
the reporting tool and may not reflect the
final formatting of the final report when submitted.
Ed Coleman
--- begin report text from report tool ---
## Description:
The mission of Apache Accumulo is the creation and maintenance of software
related to a robust, scalable, distributed key/value store with cell
be achieved
with github.
We need a space to capture the redesign and whatever we select can be made to
work - I'm just wondering what provides the easiest forum to build a
collaborative space for the Accumulo community.
Ed Coleman
On 2023/02/28 16:35:31 dlmar...@comcast.net wrote:
> Circling b
Compactions work on splits / tablets so you will need to compact the tablet
that contains the row.
Tablets correspond to split points, and the rows between the split points are
allocated to a single tablet. During a compaction the tablet will process all
of the rows in that tablet and write a
I stared a general thread concerning topics for the next release. One major
topic raised was the state of replication and trying to determine if there is
consensus for a way forward. I stared this thread so that replication
discussions can occur in a single thread for continuity. From the
I stared a general thread concerning topics for the next release. One major
topic raised was what should the next version number be? I stared this thread
so that version discussions can occur in a single thread for continuity. From
the general email thread:
Version number: There have been
issues that
you may have concerning the next release. I will start separate threads for the
version discussion and for replication. Please use this thread or create a new
thread if you want to raise other issues.
Ed Coleman
to try to get directly to the point in the
> description, since the board has to look at dozens of these each
> month.
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 5:10 PM Ed Coleman wrote:
> >
> > The Accumulo community has agreed to draft the quaterly reports usin
ce it applies to every
> ASF project, and delays the point. Have we had such a prefacing phrase
> before? It might be good to try to get directly to the point in the
> description, since the board has to look at dozens of these each
> month.
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 5
Report as submitted on 2021-01-13
Thanks everyone for the suggestions / comments.
Ed Coleman
--
## Description:
The mission of Apache Accumulo is the creation and maintenance of software
related to a robust, scalable, distributed key/value store with cell-based
access control
This is the final draft that incorporates the comments received to date. I will
submit this version Tuesday evening unless there are objections or other
changes,
Ed Coleman
-
[DRAFT][REPORT] Apache Accumulo - January 2021
## Description:
The Apache Accumulo sorted, distributed key/value
/accumulo-website/pull/256.
Please let me know if you have any feedback and your thoughts on using PRs as
an approach for drafting these reports.
Some more detailed metrics are at
https://reporter.apache.org/wizard/statistics?accumulo, which appears to
require a committer login.
Ed Coleman
-1
https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/1692
-Original Message-
From: Mike Miller
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 11:53 AM
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.10.0-rc1 (attempt 2)
Accumulo Developers,
Please consider the following candidate for Apache
+1
-Original Message-
From: Christopher
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 11:08 AM
To: accumulo-dev
Subject: [LAZY][VOTE] Rename the 1.9 branch to 1.10
Hi Accumulo devs,
I've heard from a few people that they are confused why we are developing in a
1.9 branch when we are working
I would like to raise the issue of releasing 1.10 in the near future. It
has been 16+ months since the last release. At this point I'd like to shoot
for a late August release unless additional blockers are identified, or
concerns raised.
There was some work done back in Jan/Feb timeframe and
+1
-Original Message-
From: Christopher
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2020 9:54 AM
To: accumulo-dev
Subject: [VOTE] "Manager" as new name for "master" service
Based on the feedback on
https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues/1638 , the following two names have
taken a clear lead in
+1
Thanks for working this.
-Original Message-
From: Christopher
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2020 7:59 AM
To: accumulo-dev
Subject: [LAZY][VOTE] change default branch to 'main'
As a follow-up from our previous conversation on this issue, I have already
started a new branch named 'main'
Posting this to the dev list for those that may not follow github issues
closely and so that this has a wider circulation.
If anyone wants to chime in, there has been a list of candidate names for
renaming the Master process created as issue
https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues/1638.
For processes, would Root be too confusing? We would then have rservers and
tservers which may be more descriptive of functionality.
This discussion is also going on the NiFi lists (and I assume elsewhere) One
thing that popped out is that we may want to avoid leader / follower. (Leader
is
Does the NiFi community have an established process or procedure that they
follow that we could copy as a guide? (https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/nifi/)
-Original Message-
From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb...@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 12:23 AM
To: accumulo-dev
Subject:
This vote passes with 5 binding +1s (alerman, ctubbsii, etcoleman, mjwall,
mmiller), 1 +0 (kturner) and 1 -1 (busbey)
The original proposal:
:
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. The release
would
Sean - Thanks for your responses and sorry for the confusion - my fault
entirely that I didn't more thoroughly vet this with a discuss thread
before calling for the vote and not realizing that there was ambiguity in
the votes re majority / veto.
I'll work on closing the vote.
Dave Marion raises a good point. With is proposal, the change would be in
the pom to allow java 8 language constructs with the 1.9 branch as it stand
today,
Currently the 1.9.x branch does not contain any code that is not
incompatible with java 7. The 1.10 release could be compiled with a java
make it easier to upgrade to Accumulo 2.y
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 7:37 PM Ed Coleman wrote:
>
> 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 pr
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.
without any issues. There is some
additional testing I'd like to perform concerning blocking for available
tservers - but I know of no issues at this time.
Ed Coleman
-Original Message-
From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb...@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2019 6:07 PM
To: accumulo
I think Christopher closed that - the monitor is not expected to be a
replacement for Prometheus / Graphina - but other's opinions may differ.
-Original Message-
From: d resnik [mailto:dresnik...@yahoo.com.INVALID]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 8:32 PM
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
+1
Verified published commit git sha matches
Verified binary and src tar signatures.
Build and verify passed without failures (-Psunny) on local machine
Ran on small cluster, 2 tservers and a master node, and performed some basic
checks with no issues seen.
- performed bulk ingest.
- scan of
+0
Just getting to this, and only have been able to do some cursory checks.
Because this is an alpha release I do not object moving forward. I did want to
document some issues that I seem to be having with some of the IT tests running
mvn verify.
These issues could be with my current set-up,
notes did not work for me -
assuming that because that they are in progress, they will be published when
the release is formalized, after voting completes, and is not a reason to not
accept this candidate for release.
Ed Coleman
-Original Message-
From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb...@apache.
and implications of semver
are clear, sometimes it seems that there is additional weight and additional
perceived risk when changing major versions, an alpha version preserves our
flexibility while still moving forward.
Ed Coleman
-Original Message-
From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb
not prevent the release
of this candidate.
Aditionally, rc1 was installed on bare hardware and validated with bulk ingest
and some simple scans - did not have time to repeat with rc2.
Ed Coleman
-Original Message-
From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb...@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018
correctly (issue #551).
I will try to do more once rc2 is available.
Ed Coleman
-Original Message-
From: Keith Turner [mailto:ke...@deenlo.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 5:24 PM
To: Accumulo Dev List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.9.2-rc1
-1 because of the following bug I found
+1
-Original Message-
From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb...@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 3:50 AM
To: accumulo-dev
Subject: Re: [DRAFT][ANNOUNCE] Apache Accumulo 1.9.1 (Critical Bug Fixes)
If there is consensus, I could publish late Monday. I just want to
(org.apache.accumulo.test.replication.UnorderedWorkAssignerReplicationIT)
- FastBulkImportIT.test:110
The timing issues are mentioned only for completeness are not a concern for me
in accepting this release.
Ed Coleman
-Original Message-
From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb...@apache.org]
Sent
+1
Thanks for the quick turnaround on this.
Ed Coleman
-Original Message-
From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb...@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 1:39 PM
To: accumulo-dev <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
Subject: Let's do a 1.9.1 release
Hi Devs,
I'd like to do a 1.9.1 release
+1 I verified the md5, sha1 and asc signatures of the artifacts and the git
commit sha1, the build passed mvn clean verify -Psunny, and I accept this as a
release of Accumulo 1.9.0, pending the successful outcome of cluster testing.
Ed Coleman
-Original Message-
From: Christopher
This is historical information from when I was running tests against 1.7.3, but
in case it helps with the current discussion. (File timestamps are last Feb /
March of 2107)
I was using local / openbox VM and spun up a small AWS instance. I never got
+0 I defer to others.
-Original Message-
From: Keith Turner [mailto:ke...@deenlo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 12:53 PM
To: Accumulo Dev List
Subject: [VOTE] Switch to GitHub issues
Accumulo PMC,
Please vote on initiating the transition from JIRA to
For general discussion - Facebook recently (Oct 28, 2017) published a paper on
tracing: Canopy: An End-to-End Performance Tracing and Analysis System
(https://research.fb.com/publications/canopy-end-to-end-performance-tracing-at-scale/)
As a bonus, they referenced Accumulo and HTrace in section
der, different?
I'm not opposed to a change if there are clear, demonstrable benefits beyond
personal preferences - but I also have an affinity to continuity and
consistency.
Ed Coleman
-Original Message-
From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb...@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14,
Thanks - The delay was mainly due to my time constraints and I've also been
fighting getting sick.
There are some comments that need incorporated into the release notes which
I'll try to get wrapped up tonight or tomorrow.
Ed Coleman
-Original Message-
From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb
the door :)
Keith Turner wrote:
> The release notes look good.
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Ed Coleman<d...@etcoleman.com> wrote:
>> I have completed a first pass of the release notes - they are
>> available at
>> https://github.com/EdColeman/accumulo/blob/1
to
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4496
Ed Coleman
-Original Message-
From: Ed Coleman [mailto:d...@etcoleman.com]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 9:01 PM
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.3-rc2 - vote closed (passed)
The vote to release 1.7.3.rc2 has
The vote to release 1.7.3.rc2 has met the voting criteria (+72 hours, at
least 3 +1 votes) and has passed. Vote results:
+1 - 3
0 - 0
-1 - 0
I will begin working on the release notes and other release artifacts
forthwith.
Ed Coleman
-Original Message-
From: Ed Coleman [mailto:d
released, but I also would like it to be as correct as possible - so whatever
can facilitate meeting these two somewhat conflicting goals, +1 from me, and of
course, whatever is the will of the group.
Ed Coleman
-Original Message-
From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb...@apache.org]
Sent: Monday,
Sorry, the formatting seemed to get lost. It was a pretty chart - had colors
and everything.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Coleman [mailto:d...@etcoleman.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 7:06 AM
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Subject: Intermittent IT failures - was RE: [VOTE] Accumulo
ith Turner < <mailto:ke...@deenlo.com>
> ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > Did the following :
> >
> > * Was able to build Fluo against jars in staging repo.
> > * Sigs checkout for tarballs
> > * No diffs between src ta
Accumulo Developers,
Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo 1.7.3. This candidate
contains two changes from 1.7.3-rc1:
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4600 - shell does
not fall back to accumulo-site.xml when on classpath.
-
The vote for 1.7.3-rc1 fails. Waiting for
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4600 to be fixed / merged and
then will start rc2.
The results:
+1 - 0
0 - 0
-1 - 4
-Original Message-
From: Ed Coleman [mailto:d...@etcoleman.com]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 7:11 AM
My keys show up at pgp.mit.edu
(https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex=0xFC4368E0864BCC36) Is there
something else I need to do?
I closed the staging repository this morning - and it is showing closed now -
has this resolved for you?
Ed Coleman
-Original Message-
From: Michael
Accumulo Developers,
Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo 1.7.3. (This branch is
based on the same commit as the pre-release rc0 test candidate, commit
c3a0d1d5e2f810ebcda346977009ab0fd1bd34f7) Release notes, java docs and other
non-code artifacts are still in-progress and not
chatted with Mike Wall and
he gave me some pointers.
More of a warning and apologies up front. This is my first attempt at
creating a release, so expect the worst and hope for the best.
Ed Coleman
In case this helps:
Confirmed checksum.
Passed: mvn clean verify -Psunny
Running: mvn clean verify
Environment:
Maven 3.3.9
jdk -openjdk-1.8.0.212-0.b13.el7_3.x86_64
Centos 7 (3.10.0-514.6.1.el7.x86_64)
Ed Coleman
-Original Message-
From: Michael Wall [mailto:mjw...@gmail.com]
Sent
is
released.
Ed Coleman
that are not in progress and have been moved to from 1.8.1 to 1.8.2
also be moved to 1.7.4. This would leave just a few issues that are in
progress or have been already been merged (thanks to Keith Turner)
Ed Coleman
in downloaded built artifact. Checksums
of scripts and packaged jars match. (Checksums of built artifact differ -
assuming this is I'm because building with openjdk-1.8.0_101)
[Pending update from Keith Turner - adding sampling info to release notes.]
Ed Coleman
-Original Message-
From
t release 1.8, instead release a 2.0
version of that code base with the additional change of requiring Java 8.
v/r
Ed Coleman
Josh wrote
-Original Message-
From: Dylan Hutchison [mailto:dhutc...@cs.washington.edu]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 8:49 PM
To: Accumulo Dev List <dev@accumu
+1
Verified git hash. (e5694cfa5ec3861e6f8f764e2b8477716e3072b9)
mvn clean verify -Psunny
passes all tests.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Wall [mailto:mjw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:22 PM
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.8.0-rc2
other considerations / requirements and
services that should be considered before any change is recommended.
Ed Coleman
/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/client/HdfsZooInstance.java
0d7aaf1
test/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/test/NativeMapStressTest.java 72831d8
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36186/diff/
Testing
---
passes
mvn verify -DskipITs
mvn package -P assemble
Thanks,
Ed Coleman
/accumulo/test/NativeMapStressTest.java 72831d8
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36186/diff/
Testing
---
passes
mvn verify -DskipITs
mvn package -P assemble
Thanks,
Ed Coleman
+1 for EOL of 1.5 with the release of 1.5.3
-Original Message-
From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb...@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 1:18 PM
To: Accumulo Dev List
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] EOL 1.5
So, at this point, I'm willing to do a 1.5.3 release and can start that today.
It
looking forward to working with all of you and thank you for
extending me committer status.
Ed Coleman
My current interests
-Original Message-
From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb...@apache.org]
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 9:51 AM
To: Accumulo Dev List
Subject: Re: New committers!
He also
The basic issue was pointed out that the original - using just
e.getMessage() could cause problems because the log message is expecting a
format string, so if e.getMessage() had {} in the message it would be
interrupted for parameter replacement / expansion but there would be no
parameter.
The {}
that it be removed - I just want to make
sure that I understand the other side effects and know our options.
Ed Coleman
to see how it could be
leveraged.
And with a request for internationalized logging in ACCUMULO-2797, well slf4j
(http://www.slf4j.org/localization.html) seems like it would position us to
support that too.
Ed Coleman
(sorry if this gets duplicated, but my first reply seems to be wandering
to see how it could be
leveraged.
And with a request for internationalized logging in ACCUMULO-2797, well slf4j
(http://www.slf4j.org/localization.html) seems like it would position us to
support that too.
Ed Coleman
On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 12:18 AM, William Slacum wrote:
Sounds good, Ed
I am willing to take another run at the Consistent Logging ticket,
ACCUMULO-1242, but I'd like to achieve a consensus on an approach before
starting.
The tl;dr version - I would like to split ACCUMULO-1242 into subtasks.
Target version would be 1.7.0 (or whatever it gets called, would not mind
out.
Ed Coleman
Arshak Navruzyan wrote:
Along these lines curious where and how monitor stores its stats currently. I
imagine some of it comes from !METADATA but guessing not all of it does (for
example the time series).
If there was a clean way to access the stats there is no shortage
something? (Thought I should ask before opening a ticket)
Ed Coleman
76 matches
Mail list logo