Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: vines@apache.org
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGHyZ6LD7H1Cu+L8odyYV2YREfxGA-BTmStdmFZf2Q664e8XHw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CADczPYRa1h3jQ+4nDBD10K84H+PeRbnkkqZRbD7EUe0a7S+kXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL5zq9ZL8ns6FhGEr06hFsiJ_wDHqtpaPJEEN5tVeu5cqrp5qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6JxX8b1VPCi=if-txTWj=SYyr13iWqK1EkLV8gNzctSbQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6LDjO_3MywrzHVVTbSVUUHqkrDBYsgCrQghLnitZ5OAzA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADczPYTFGo8Q3=zt5GOgh=-0phgFPYrgaM6xP00v64mXr_aa1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6+qbWEh5Or9VtdU013WQ2rnp2O6Du7mme+=PGV_xdOp6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADczPYRsjT98H_rQFk0zXGv1YsBWCJc9i5iq1p7vqGP1Mftacw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6LD7H1Cu+L8odyYV2YREfxGA-BTmStdmFZf2Q664e8XHw@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Vines <vines@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:14:17 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CADczPYR=+Tj=J2fxo9TMds_mXzA3msvhL8wfm4Ythrdzn9v=8A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 1.6.0 Feature Freeze
To: Accumulo Dev List <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133646042af4104ea119e9f

--001a1133646042af4104ea119e9f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:45 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > All of your comments make sense to me. Unfortunately we're a bit stuck in
> > the latter category. Going forward we can make steps as a community to
> help
> > prevent it, but that doesn't change this release. And beside issue of
> > pulling out an incrementally committed feature, pulling out features
> lends
> > the potential for a release to be insubstantial.
> >
> >
> There are 149 non-duplicate issues resolved marked for 1.6.0 that aren't
> marked for a 1.5.x series[1].
>
> That a good deal, though I admittedly don't know how substantial they are,
> and I don't have a sense for how many would be *need* to be pulled out as
> part of a major feature revert.
>
>
> > So for the sake of the 1.6.0 release, what do we think we should do about
> > the sub-tasks for added/expected features? Particularly ones deemed
> > requisite for that feature to hit the mainline?
> >
>
> Ultimately, if you're the release manager you get to decide. You can just
> take a very permissive view on how far along things posted to review board
> need to be at the start. Or a permissive view on what constitutes an update
> "critical" for the release.
>
> I think we all want to avoid the ~5 months it took to get through RC on
> 1.5, but I'd be happy with even the incremental improvement we'd have by
> implementing Chris' suggestion on a review board choke point starting at
> deadline. Even if things drag on past a week, the patches that come out of
> those review boards will likely be far better organized than the frantic
> updates we saw last time.
>
> Do we have a prioritized list yet? An idea of what the assigned people
> think they'll hit by tomorrow night? A good list of gaps would help a great
> deal in this discussion.
>
>
>
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1832?filter=12325665
This is the filter I'm going by. I'm running with Christopher's suggestions
to count things in review board as "in". Bugs are scoped as as they are
bugs and more will be encountered as we test features, so they're still
fair game. There is a discussion we should have post feature freeze for
establishing guidelines for code freeze, etc. more concretely (we have this
conversation every time, don't we?). But for now, I'm on feature freeze. Of
those, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1832?filter=12325666 are
all the sub-tasks (though some should also qualify as bugs). For
convenience, non-sub-tasks are
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1000?filter=12325667 . Also
worth noting that there's at least one parent task held open by nothing but
Documentation, so there's a little less than the total here too.

I tried to prioritize tickets as well, as there are plenty left which I
think are okay to slip, but I'm uncertain of a lot of their statuses
because they are owned by people. Roughly, I would say that the ones I'm
most concerned about falling outside the RB guidelines are the top half of
the sub-tasks, mostly due to the outcome of the features those sub-tasks
are part of.


> [1]: http://bit.ly/18H9jpx
>
> --
> Sean
>

--001a1133646042af4104ea119e9f--