Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of dlmarion@comcast.net designates
 76.96.62.80 as permitted sender)
From: <dlmarion@comcast.net>
To: <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
References: 
 <CADczPYScid=9K6uABF1O+O8XX21kFYGJQcAbx666ma3k2H0u3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL5zq9aRfbKxCBYiqjDiUw1my9-BDMvXBty=UiUZe2nf7h-wHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADczPYSuVpwNkjXuFsQZegLy4oAs209h0akvXkkejd8Ys+cZ0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <526AC343.2020801@gmail.com>
 <CAL5zq9YBVgOhk7vxYJXatSW60qQeTNr0=1=GHWYRTR1C_=0+eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6LD+aXjmOy0ULgO1fWXVVSNVkG7k9e8LtfCJ7cXf+=U1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <526ACC31.8080503@gmail.com>
 <CAGUtCHpUD3hH+MzxmSSmTm+1Vt61S02H3tSVV8gggM4Mcrd6Mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADczPYRuOnCh9+SsN+nbJV2bODaDOYZ_4-AVm69S_XpMp5fCxA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADczPYRuOnCh9+SsN+nbJV2bODaDOYZ_4-AVm69S_XpMp5fCxA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Accumulo feature freeze in 1 week
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:37:24 -0400
Message-ID: <006301ced1ca$64f26810$2ed73830$@comcast.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: 
 AQKwBpKo2RBQOxDZY7hrjFHCKaXssAMGqRw2AfSQ+aUB2YnkPgHAz//wAdYNbx0CSBcJKQH5XbrGAatjXwOXwMNsIA==
Content-Language: en-us

  Are you talking about the sub-tasks? The issue is marked as resolved.
Maybe they are done also. 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Vines [mailto:vines@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 5:09 PM
To: Accumulo Dev List
Subject: Re: Accumulo feature freeze in 1 week

I am concerned about the tickets around 118, as there seem to be a fair
amount of blockers revolving around it. What's the status of those?


On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Keith Turner <keith@deenlo.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Encryption (rest+motion), Conditional Mutations, Root tablet in its 
> > own table (instead of !METADATA), MiniAccumuloCluster improvements, 
> > Shell improvements (jcommander related), lots of other 
> > bug-fixes/improvements
> and
> > updates to recent Hadoop versions.
> >
>
> Also ACCUMULO-118 and ACCUMULO-1451
>
>
> >
> > Those are what pop out at me.
> >
> >
> > On 10/25/13 12:49 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> >
> >> Does anyone know off the top of their head the feature(s) that 
> >> caused
> 1.6
> >> to be planned as a major release in the first place?
> >>
> >> I see ~180 resolved issues in jira, but we don't appear to have a
> shortcut
> >> for flagging things as breaking.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>  I don't mind putting things off to 1.7 (if necessary). But... if 
> >> 1.6.0
> >>> isn't sufficiently feature rich, there's not really a reason to 
> >>> release it just yet... until those features are ready. That said, 
> >>> I do think there'll be enough features in 1.6.0 to release it as a 
> >>> minor release, if we're interpreting the version as the standard 
> >>> <major>.<minor>.<bugfix> scheme, even if we end up pushing some 
> >>> stuff off to 1.7.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> True, but at the same time it makes no sense to release 1.6.0 if 
> >>>> the features contained within are incomplete.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are still a number of blockers that are unresolved that 
> >>>> would
> all
> >>>>
> >>> fall
> >>>
> >>>> into the category of creating a broken 1.6.0 or having to back 
> >>>> out
> large
> >>>> changesets. I know these blockers would be categorized as "bug fixes"
> >>>> and
> >>>> not "features", but some of these bugs are directly from new 
> >>>> features
> >>>>
> >>> which
> >>>
> >>>> I would argue are thus still a part of this feature.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm all for trying to release early and often, but I will be the 
> >>>> guy
> who
> >>>> throws a wrench in the works if we do it at the sake of reducing 
> >>>> the
> >>>>
> >>> quality
> >>>
> >>>> of our release.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/25/13 11:49 AM, John Vines wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'd rather not go down the slippery slope we went down last time.
> I'll
> >>>>> gladly be the bad guy and say that things are getting pushed to 1.7.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Christopher 
> >>>>> <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> >>>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>  It looks like we're 50% in terms of tickets complete.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://s.apache.org/accumulo-**1.6.0-issues<
> http://s.apache.org/accumulo-1.6.0-issues>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Extensions are always nice, but I'm not going to be the bad guy 
> >>>>>> and ask for one :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >>>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:33 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Alright folks, we're down to the wire. Feature freeze is one 
> >>>>>>> week
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> away.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> If
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> anyone has any last minute concerns about this schedule, 
> >>>>>>> please
> speak
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> up
> >>>
> >>>> now. Otherwise, have a great weekend!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>