Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate FlatLedgerManager

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 2:22 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Il gio 1 feb 2018, 22:43 Ivan Kelly ha scritto: > > > > well I don't think it is an easy effort to upgrade from flat ledger > > manager > > > to hierarchical ledger manager. There was a huge long discussion about > > this > > > migration 2-

Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate FlatLedgerManager

The major concern was about id generation. Yes if you take the cluster down, you can do it easily. But it is not really useful then. So my take is not to support it at all. It is not worth spending time and energy on it. Sijie On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 1:43 PM Ivan Kelly wrote: > > well I don't t

Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate FlatLedgerManager

Il gio 1 feb 2018, 22:43 Ivan Kelly ha scritto: > > well I don't think it is an easy effort to upgrade from flat ledger > manager > > to hierarchical ledger manager. There was a huge long discussion about > this > > migration 2-3 years ago. > I remember one of my first questions as an user was a

Re: Access to apachebookkeeper dockerhub

Getting access denied when I try to push src/bookkeeper $ docker login Login with your Docker ID to push and pull images from Docker Hub. If you don't have a Docker ID, head over to https://hub.docker.com to create one. Username (ivankelly): Password: Login Succeeded ~/src/bookkeeper $ docker pus

Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate FlatLedgerManager

> well I don't think it is an easy effort to upgrade from flat ledger manager > to hierarchical ledger manager. There was a huge long discussion about this > migration 2-3 years ago. Do you recall where the discussion was? JIRA or ML? Superficially it seems like a simple operation if the cluster i

Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate FlatLedgerManager

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Ivan Kelly wrote: > +1 > > Flat is an vestigial. Prereq to removal is a tool for upgrading ledger > metadata. > well I don't think it is an easy effort to upgrade from flat ledger manager to hierarchical ledger manager. There was a huge long discussion about this

Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate FlatLedgerManager

+1 On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Ivan Kelly wrote: > +1 > > Flat is an vestigial. Prereq to removal is a tool for upgrading ledger > metadata. > > -Ivan > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:14 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > `FlatLedgerManager` is not useful at production and most of the >

Re: Access to apachebookkeeper dockerhub

Thanks. Will check later tonight. On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > Done. Please check if you have permissions to access it. > > - Sijie > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Ivan Kelly wrote: > >> ivankelly >> >> Thanks, >> Ivan >> >> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Sijie Guo

Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate FlatLedgerManager

+1 Flat is an vestigial. Prereq to removal is a tool for upgrading ledger metadata. -Ivan On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:14 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > Hi all, > > `FlatLedgerManager` is not useful at production and most of the production > environment I knew don't use `FlatLedgerManager`. But the default

Re: Access to apachebookkeeper dockerhub

Done. Please check if you have permissions to access it. - Sijie On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Ivan Kelly wrote: > ivankelly > > Thanks, > Ivan > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 5:34 AM, Ivan Kelly wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> How do I get

Re: [DISCUSS] EOL of BookKeeper releases

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Ivan Kelly wrote: > Ok, I think we're on the same page as to what is needed. The tool > needs to be in place before any version is EOL. > > I do think we should retain some BC tests with the older versions, of the > form: > - init cluster with 4.1.0 - run 4.7.0 u

[DISCUSS] Deprecate FlatLedgerManager

Hi all, `FlatLedgerManager` is not useful at production and most of the production environment I knew don't use `FlatLedgerManager`. But the default value in the configuration is still setting to `FlatLedgerManager`, which doesn't sound right for the new users. so I think it is the time to raise t

Re: [DISCUSS] EOL of BookKeeper releases

Ok, I think we're on the same page as to what is needed. The tool needs to be in place before any version is EOL. I do think we should retain some BC tests with the older versions, of the form: - init cluster with 4.1.0 - run 4.7.0 upgrade tool - start latest (4.8.0-SNAPSHOT) bookie and client An

Re: Access to apachebookkeeper dockerhub

ivankelly Thanks, Ivan On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 5:34 AM, Ivan Kelly wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> How do I get access to the apachebookkeeper dockerhub organisation. I >> want to push the all-versions-image so that CI doesn't have to build >> it all

Re: [DISCUSS] EOL of BookKeeper releases

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:53 AM, Ivan Kelly wrote: > >> What do we mean by stopping support for BC? > > > > It means we will NOT consider BC problems with those old releases. > > If EOL means ignoring all BC considerations, then I'm -1 on these > prop

Re: [DISCUSS] EOL of BookKeeper releases

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:34 AM, Enrico Olivelli wrote: > 2018-02-01 13:29 GMT+01:00 Sijie Guo : > > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 2:51 AM, Ivan Kelly wrote: > > > > > > We have switched to Time Based Release Schedule > > > > > > BP-13+-+Time+

Re: Access to apachebookkeeper dockerhub

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 5:34 AM, Ivan Kelly wrote: > Hi all, > > How do I get access to the apachebookkeeper dockerhub organisation. I > want to push the all-versions-image so that CI doesn't have to build > it all each time. > What is your dockerhub id? I can grant you the permission. > > -Iva

Access to apachebookkeeper dockerhub

Hi all, How do I get access to the apachebookkeeper dockerhub organisation. I want to push the all-versions-image so that CI doesn't have to build it all each time. -Ivan

Re: [DISCUSS] EOL of BookKeeper releases

>> What do we mean by stopping support for BC? > > It means we will NOT consider BC problems with those old releases. If EOL means ignoring all BC considerations, then I'm -1 on these proposals. But I don't think we need to go to those extremes. I think we need to specify what BC guarantees we giv

Re: [DISCUSS] EOL of BookKeeper releases

2018-02-01 13:29 GMT+01:00 Sijie Guo : > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 2:51 AM, Ivan Kelly wrote: > > > > We have switched to Time Based Release Schedule > > > > BP-13+-+Time+Based+Release+Plan> > > > since > > > 4.6.0 and we have 3 successful r

Re: Release 4.7.0

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 2:52 AM, Ivan Kelly wrote: > > We have about one month to cut release 4.7.0. Please go through the > issues > > you filed, if you would like them to be included in 4.7.0, please label > > them as `4.7.0`. I would cut the release branch and freeze the features > > that will

Re: [DISCUSS] EOL of BookKeeper releases

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 2:51 AM, Ivan Kelly wrote: > > We have switched to Time Based Release Schedule > > BP-13+-+Time+Based+Release+Plan> > > since > > 4.6.0 and we have 3 successful releases since then - 4.5.1, 4.6.0 and > > 4.6.1. And

Re: Release 4.7.0

> We have about one month to cut release 4.7.0. Please go through the issues > you filed, if you would like them to be included in 4.7.0, please label > them as `4.7.0`. I would cut the release branch and freeze the features > that will be included in 4.7.0 in a week or so. I've gone though all cr

Re: [DISCUSS] EOL of BookKeeper releases

> We have switched to Time Based Release Schedule > > since > 4.6.0 and we have 3 successful releases since then - 4.5.1, 4.6.0 and > 4.6.1. And the 4.7.0 release is coming in a month or so. According to > BP-1