accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Wall <mjw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Time for a 1.8.0 release?
Date Wed, 03 Aug 2016 20:55:30 GMT
They do fail intermittently, and have been for some time.  It takes over 6
hours to do a full IT run and the builds.apache.org servers can't run
them.  We use -skipITs there.  I'd be surprised if they were all passing
for the 1.7.2 release.  They are not all passing now on the 1.7 branch.

I was thinking that a passing -Psunny would be a good release criteria
until we can get the failing ones cleaned up.  The referenced ITs are not
part of the sunny profile.  Josh and I have been cleaning them up, but it
is going to take some time.  Many of them really need to be refactored and
the validity of the tests should be evaluated.  I think some of them could
become unit tests.  And we really need them to run in less than 6 hours.

Since only tickets for sporadicly failing ITs not part of the sunny profile
were left in Jira, I didn't want to hold up progress on the release.  What
do others think?



On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:

> do the referenced ITs still fail? IIRC, passing ITs is part of our
> release criteria.
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Michael Wall <mjwall@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I just moved the last 2 tickets out of 1.8.0.  Both tickets were for
> > failing ITs.  Seems like we are ready now for the release.  Anyone
> disagree?
> >
> > I plan on making an RC tomorrow.  I'll start with a RC0 to work out the
> > process then make an RC1 if that goes smoothly.
> >
> > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Keith Turner <keith@deenlo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Michael Wall <mjwall@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Didn't get a chance to talk to Christopher so hopefully what I
> understood
> >> > from emails with Josh and him is correct.
> >> >
> >> > Moved issues out of 1.8.0.  Here is a summary of the fix version
> changes
> >> >
> >> > 8 issues - 1.7.2, 1.8.0 => 1.7.2, 1.8.1
> >> > 9 issues - 1.6.6, 1.7.3, 1.8.0 => 1.6.6, 1.7.3, 1.8.1
> >> > 34 issues - 1.7.3, 1.8.0 => 1.7.3, 1.8.1
> >> > 102 issues (BUG) - 1.8.0 => 1.8.1
> >> > 248 issues (not BUG) - 1.8.0 => 1.9.1
> >> >
> >> > That leaves 3 issues in 1.8.0, I made them blockers
> >> > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4157 (WAL can be
> >> > prematurely deleted)
> >> > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4165 (Create a user
> >> level
> >> > API for RFile)
> >> > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1124 (optimize index
> >> size
> >> > in RFile)
> >> >
> >> > Keith has a PR in for 1124.  I am looking to put in a PR for 4157
> >> > tomorrow/Sat.  Keith, if I need to move 4165 to 1.8.1 let me know.
> >> >
> >>
> >> 1124 is merged.  4165 has a PR.  I also created a PR for 4318[1].  While
> >> testing the new RFile API I tried to use try-with-resources with a
> scanner
> >> and found I could not.  I think it would be nice to get 4318 into 1.8.0
> >> because its a change that can only be made on a minor release.
> >>
> >> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4165>4318
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Once those are closed/moved, I will cut an RC1.
> >> >
> >> > Mike
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Michael Wall <mjwall@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Christopher,
> >> > >
> >> > > I'd like to talk this through with you before I move the tickets to
> >> make
> >> > > sure I understand what you are saying here.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks for the note, it is helpful.
> >> > >
> >> > > Mike
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 9:42 PM Michael Wall <mjwall@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > After last weeks discussion with Josh, Christopher and others
at
> the
> >> > >> > Accumulo Working Day, I am going to shepherd the 1.8 release.
> First
> >> > >> step
> >> > >> > is to create a release candidate?  Before I do that, are
there
> any
> >> > >> tickets
> >> > >> > that need to get into the release?  I know Keith mentioned
1 or 2
> >> and
> >> > I
> >> > >> > have one I'd like to finish.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Here is what Jira says is unresolved,
> >> > >> > https://s.apache.org/accumulo-1.8-unresolved
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > On Wed I would like to move all tickets not identified for
the
> 1.8
> >> > >> release
> >> > >> > to 2.0.  Then on Friday I would like to cut the first release
> >> > candidate
> >> > >> for
> >> > >> > 1.8.  Is that enough time?  Anything I am missing?
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Thanks
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Mike
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I think it's probably time. I don't know that I'd bump the stuff
to
> >> 2.0.
> >> > >> I'd rather bump it to 1.9, just because we've been on a roll with
> this
> >> > >> backwards compatibility thing, and I think there's probably ongoing
> >> > demand
> >> > >> for updated 1.x versions.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I'll try to go through the issues I've created (or have assigned
to
> >> me)
> >> > >> and
> >> > >> bump them myself. So, if you could hold off on that for a few
more
> >> days,
> >> > >> it
> >> > >> would help.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Also, keep in mind, if you do bump using JIRAs batch features,
> you've
> >> > got
> >> > >> to do it multiple times, depending on if they have more than one
> >> > >> fixVersion
> >> > >> on them, otherwise you'll overwrite the multiple versions with
a
> >> single
> >> > >> one
> >> > >> (or vice versa).
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Eg.
> >> > >> (1.6.6, 1.7.2, 1.8.0) -> (1.6.6, 1.7.2, 1.8.1) // should just
be
> bug
> >> > fixes
> >> > >> (1.7.2, 1.8.0) -> (1.7.2, 1.8.1) // should just be bug fixes
> >> > >> (1.8.0) -> (1.8.1 or 1.9.0) // depends on if bugfix or feature
> >> addition
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> busbey
>

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