accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Miller <mmil...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?
Date Tue, 09 Oct 2018 15:39:51 GMT
I think once we collect all the changes in 2.0 (there are a lot) we will be
able to create some bullet points, picking out changes most interesting to
users. The new bulk import process Kieth, Mark and I worked on should be
one.  There are many new features that come along with it that weren't
possible.  There was all the work Mike did for usability that he is
presenting at the summit and wrote a blog post about 2 years ago:
https://accumulo.apache.org/blog/2016/11/16/simpler-scripts-and-config.html
Rfile Summaries was a big change but happened a while ago.  Recently, the
new Crypto service and new AccumuloClient builder are some other features
that come to mind.


On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:05 PM Josh Elser <elserj@apache.org> wrote:

> Frankly, planning a release without even an idea of what is going into it
> seems like a waste of time to me.
>
> I didn't ask these questions to try to squash such a release; I don't think
> they're particularly difficult to figure out. Just curious what the release
> notes would look like (as a user, this is what I would care about). I don't
> think I'm alone.
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018, 19:33 Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I don't know the answers to these questions. I just want to put a
> > stake in the ground before the Accumulo Summit, so we have a basis for
> > evaluation and testing, and answering some of these unknowns.
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:28 AM Josh Elser <elserj@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I would like to know what the scope of 2.0 is. Specifically:
> > >
> > > * What's new in this 2.0 alpha that people that is driving the release?
> > > * Is there anything else expected to land post-alpha/pre-GA?
> > >
> > > On 10/6/18 1:36 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> > > > yes alphas please. Do we want to talk about expectations on time
> > > > between alpha releases? What kind of criteria for beta or GA?
> > > >
> > > > a *lot* has changed in the 2.0 codebase.
> > > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:45 AM Ed Coleman <dev1@etcoleman.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> +1
> > > >>
> > > >> In addition to the reasons stated by Christopher, I think that it
> > also provides a clearer signal to earlier adopters that the public API
> > *may* change before the formal release. With a formal release candidate,
> I
> > interpret that it signals that only bug-fixes would occur up and until
> the
> > formal release.
> > > >>
> > > >> With the length of time that we take between minor and patch
> > releases, the even longer time that it takes the customer base to upgrade
> > and development cost that we have supporting multiple branches, taking
> some
> > extra time now to solicit feedback seems prudent. While the specifics and
> > implications of semver are clear, sometimes it seems that there is
> > additional weight and additional perceived risk when changing major
> > versions, an alpha version preserves our flexibility while still moving
> > forward.
> > > >>
> > > >> Ed Coleman
> > > >>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Christopher [mailto:ctubbsii@apache.org]
> > > >> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 12:28 AM
> > > >> To: accumulo-dev <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
> > > >> Subject: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Accumulo devs,
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm thinking about initiating a vote next week for a 2.0.0-alpha
> > release, so we can have an official ASF release (albeit without the usual
> > stability expectations as a normal release) to be available for the
> > upcoming Accumulo Summit.
> > > >>
> > > >> An alpha version would signal our progress towards 2.0.0 final,
> serve
> > as a basis for testing, and give us something to share with a wider
> > audience to solicit feedback on the API, configuration, and module
> changes.
> > Of course, it would still have to meet ASF release requirements... like
> > licensing and stuff, and it should essentially work (so people can
> actually
> > run tests), but in an alpha release, we could tolerate flaws we wouldn't
> in
> > a final release.
> > > >>
> > > >> Ideally, I would have preferred a 2.0.0 final at this point in the
> > year, but I think it needs more testing.
> > > >>
> > > >> Does an alpha release next week seem reasonable to you?
> > > >>
> > > >> Christopher
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>

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