accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] CHANGES Documents
Date Thu, 20 Feb 2014 07:36:01 GMT
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Sean Busbey <>wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Josh Elser <> wrote:
>>> The more I reread this thread, the more I like the release notes
>>> described
>>> by Eric[2].
>> While I agree that would be nice, I don't know of a quantitative way to
>> determine that. Is "critical" categorized by some Jira priority? Do we end
>> up omitting something that someone wanted? I feel like we should just
>> bundle all changes for that release or none at that point.
> We're the Accumulo community, we should be cognizant of what changes are
> most likely to impact downstream users. After all, isn't that part of how
> we define a public API in the first place?
As an illustrative example, consider ACCUMULO-1572. Losing all the roles
attached to a ZK server when it goes down is going to burn any production
deployment of sufficient age. Users will fall into two camps: those already
implementing a workaround (e.g. a watchdog that restarts Accumulo
processes) and those who have gotten lucky.

The latter will most definitely want to hear about this fix in consumable
release notes. Depending on the overhead caused to those in the first camp,
they likely will also be interested. Even if we just started by filtering
based on priority, picking this issue out of the 22 BLOCKER/CRITICAL is
much more reasonable then out of the full list of 144 Closed/Resolved Bug
issues included for 1.5.1.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message