Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of josh.elser@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.192.48 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <543368E6.7020902@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 00:15:34 -0400
From: Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.11 (Macintosh/20140602)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Subject: Re: 1.7 release timeline
References: 
 <CADczPYQ+kaU876P-pBaFq+B2gPihLq3-epoUd3WNkUwOqtUUqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5433360C.3020601@gmail.com>
 <CAL5zq9bO8V0RDr5=JH=TAvPFdg9xZ2a-7YR4FxikJr-5xcHiWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF1jEfDBGqK6A2rXNice9SotMtdeyTz+GWLCVY6TkPhDsrtYPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL5zq9YpkXyjRvCiVp5KUvZZXejxD4Q7qSsqPvkZpQnLJhm3NA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAL5zq9YpkXyjRvCiVp5KUvZZXejxD4Q7qSsqPvkZpQnLJhm3NA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Oh, please, no worries. Part of figuring out the timeline for certain is 
to figure out what we plan to accomplish!

Happy to see productive conversation on the subject.

Christopher wrote:
> Ah, I assumed it had instrumentation! Okay, cool. Thanks for the
> clarification. So, I see that it definitely makes sense to work towards
> merging htrace and cloudtrace/accumulo-trace, and fix the shortcomings as
> it matures. (Now, back to the show/main thread. ;) )
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Billie Rinaldi<billie.rinaldi@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Zipkin is a possible replacement for our trace collection system.  It does
>> not provide instrumentation like cloudtrace or htrace, so even if we make
>> zipkin the default collection system we will still need instrumentation.
>> Anyway, we can discuss the details and approach elsewhere.  I'd certainly
>> want the trace work to be in 2.0, but if we decide not to put it in 1.7
>> that would be okay.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Christopher<ctubbsii@apache.org>  wrote:
>>
>>> Would replacing cloudtrace be part of 1.7? I'm not sure about that. I'd
>>> like to see where that's headed before we decide on that. Personally, I'd
>>> prefer Zipkin, since htrace is basically a copy of
>>> cloudtrace/accumulo-trace, and it has some of the same issues (millis
>> time,
>>> for instance, instead of relative nanos, which is independent of the
>> system
>>> clock and actually intended for time spans).
>>>
>>> I think the upgrade guarantees are more a 2.0.0 thing, but I think we can
>>> be a bit more conservative in 1.x to move towards that. I wouldn't mind
>>> dropping Hadoop 1 support in 1.7.0. (I guess we should just vote on
>> that).
>>> I'd really like to include the VolumeChooser improvements (in particular
>>> ACCUMULO-3177, which depends on ACCUMULO-3176).
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks, John.
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking about trying to gun for January time-frame for a
>> release.
>>>> I'd love to say before 2014 is over, but that probably just won't
>> happen
>>>> for a major release with the holidays.
>>>>
>>>> For 1.7 right now, I see the following "bigger" items (correct me where
>>>> I'm wrong):
>>>>
>>>> * Replication (done)
>>>> * Upgrade rules/guarantees (proposed)
>>>> * Replace cloudtrace (in-progress)
>>>> * Rewrite monitor, include REST service (in-progress)
>>>> * Drop Hadoop 1 support (proposed)
>>>> * Decouple MiniAccumulo from ITs (in-progress)
>>>> * Other minicluster types: in-process, shim to real instance
>>> (in-progress)
>>>> * Support Hadoop metrics2 (proposed)
>>>> * A few WAL/metadata related performance improvements (in-progress)
>>>>
>>>> Also, would be good to check the In-Progress state issues on JIRA. What
>>> do
>>>> people think?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John Vines wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Moving this to it's own thread...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Mike Drob<madrob@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>   Related: Do we have a release timeline for 1.7?
>>>>>>
>