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 eric.newton@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.179 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADxc9BnUdLWdvqFt6CE24zwaS69nv=jp7nbdyEJqhcz289e1XQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAGHyZ6LSeV+mddBq5ta8bc6TcLpNn5zydiyaPa8S0axaowPykQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGUtCHoQ4X-vryKUJHrV9-UK5xp+X0zULLFKjzJfGtJif292JA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGHyZ6+EUFVvkdEEkS+yKHhCDBCP4cL2YvFaPt62y2wFrne0GA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADxc9BnUdLWdvqFt6CE24zwaS69nv=jp7nbdyEJqhcz289e1XQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:31:43 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CADxc9BmScp0iebH=dC3h1zBOV7+JHyYCiwbPwrTSb6mWt364UQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Pushing out unassigned issues to 1.6.1
From: Eric Newton <eric.newton@gmail.com>
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c131b83e2f8204f496f556

--001a11c131b83e2f8204f496f556
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

This time in english:

In fact, if it's not marked critical or blocker I don't think we should
worry about it.


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Eric Newton <eric.newton@gmail.com> wrote:

> Intermittent IT failures should not hold up the release.  In fact, if it's
> not marked critical or blocker I don't even thing we should even worry
> about it.
>
> I worked on ACCUMULO-2459, but I really need ctubbsii's input on this.  If
> someone else knows what needs to be done, go for it.
>
> I would be comfortable with 1.6.0 as-is.
>
> Perfect is the enemy...
>
> -Eric
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey+lists@cloudera.com>wrote:
>
>> Those are the biggies I was thinking of. I'm not sure about the recent IT
>> failures opened by Eric N.
>>
>> * ACCUMULO-118 accumulo could work across HDFS instances, which would help
>> it to scale past a single namenode
>>
>> needs to get closed out (but it's just waiting for ACCUMULO-2061 I think)
>>
>> * ACCUMULO-2459 accumulo-init RPM conflicts with accumulo-core RPM on
>> /etc/accumulo
>>
>> Maybe this packaging concern?
>>
>> -Sean
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Keith Turner <keith@deenlo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Sounds good.   I will take a look at 2460.  I think more could be
>> pushed to
>> > 1.6.1 or 1.7.0.  What are the issues that mus be done for 1.6.0?  Below
>> are
>> > some that seem critical.
>> >
>> > ACCUMULO-2148 - verify upgrade works
>> > ACCUMULO-2061 - deprecate instance.dfs.uri
>> > ACCUMULO-2396 - create 1.6.0 release notes
>> >
>> > What about the documentation ones?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey+lists@cloudera.com
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > Unless someone objects, I'd like to push out most of the outstanding
>> > issues
>> > > for 1.6.0 that aren't assigned to anyone.
>> > >
>> > > Most of these currently have priority Major. If someone thinks the
>> > problem
>> > > is severe enough to not push out, please assign yourself or escalate
>> the
>> > > priority.
>> > >
>> > > * ACCUMULO-2095 Shard randomwalk test fails w/ multiple namnodes
>> > > * ACCUMULO-1218 document the recovery from a failed zookeeper
>> > > * ACCUMULO-1515 Minimize README
>> > > * ACCUMULO-1491 Stop packaging html pages with the monitor
>> > > * ACCUMULO-2308 LargeRowIT occasionally fails with too few splits
>> > > * ACCUMULO-2453 NoClassDefFound building against Hadoop1 in
>> > ShellServerTest
>> > > * ACCUMULO-2460 Experimental properties no longer hidden from
>> > > DefaultConfiguration
>> > >
>> > > None of these impact the public API and most of them are clean up of
>> test
>> > > or docs. So I think they can wait for a follow up release.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Sean
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

--001a11c131b83e2f8204f496f556--