accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <els...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?
Date Tue, 09 Oct 2018 16:03:40 GMT
Thanks, Mike.

Didn't RFile summaries show up in 1.9 too? (maybe I'm inventing that)

On 10/9/18 11:39 AM, Mike Miller wrote:
> 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
View raw message