incubator-blur-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Rohr <rohr.ch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 0.2.4 release planning
Date Tue, 06 Jan 2015 16:02:41 GMT
Aaron,

You are correct that #4 is fixed.


On Tue Jan 06 2015 at 10:51:54 AM Aaron McCurry <amccurry@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Tim Williams <williamstw@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The complete list:
> >
> > 1) pom file changes - seems like everyone is ok with this for 0.2.4,
> > so I'll make those changes in the next day or so.
> >
>
> I think this is complete.
>
>
> >
> > 2) documentation - there's still a bit left on the command stuff that
> > I'll try to finish off in the next day or so; we also need to just go
> > through the rest of the documentation and make sure it's all still
> > accurate.
> >
>
> This still needs to be finished unless we are ok with releasing it
> incomplete.
>
>
> >
> > 3) Apply some changes to the IndexInput and such that improve merge
> > performance.
> >
>
> This still needs to improved a bit, but the overall solution is still
> unknown.
>
>
> >
> > 4) Routing issue with the console.
> >
>
> I think this is fixed.
>
>
> >
> > ?5) Add javadoc tags for @blur.experimental so folks using the new
> > Command stuff have fair warning and we have more freedom?
> >
>
> If we mark the command API experimental do we need to finish the docs
> before release?
>
> Aaron
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --tim
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Chris Rohr <rohr.chris@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > We need to figure out how to fix the routing issue that came up with
> the
> > > console when we downgraded Jetty from 9 to 8.
> > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:24 AM Aaron McCurry <amccurry@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> There are a few code updates from the merge testing that need to be
> > >> applied. I will try to have them applied later today.
> > >>
> > >> On Tuesday, December 2, 2014, Tim Williams <williamstw@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Ok, so we have:
> > >> >
> > >> > 1) pom file changes - seems like everyone is ok with this for 0.2.4,
> > >> > so I'll make those changes in the next day or so.
> > >> > 2) documentation - there's still a bit left on the command stuff
> that
> > >> > I'll try to finish off in the next day or so; we also need to just
> go
> > >> > through the rest of the documentation and make sure it's all still
> > >> > accurate.
> > >> > 3) ?
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > --tim
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Aaron McCurry <amccurry@gmail.com
> > >> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> > > I have helped them out on this issue.  It turns out that several
> of
> > the
> > >> > > thread pools were configured with too many threads.  I will check
> > back
> > >> > with
> > >> > > them tomorrow to make sure that everything is still running well.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Aaron
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Tim Williams <
> williamstw@gmail.com
> > >> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> Ok, let's crash on this issue then.  Chris, do you wanna
open up
> a
> > >> > >> JIRA issue for it?  Any ideas how we might craft a test for
it?
> It
> > >> > >> seems like it might have to be an integration test, but can
you
> say
> > >> > >> more about the conditions that precede it?  Any sorting?
Any
> > filters?
> > >> > >> Large number of fields? Large number of column families?
 If you
> > can
> > >> > >> open up a ticket, I'm wondering if we can iterate on a test
until
> > we
> > >> > >> find the right scenario that reproduces it or maybe you don't
> know
> > >> > >> enough about it quite yet?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Thanks,
> > >> > >> --tim
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Aaron McCurry <
> amccurry@gmail.com
> > >> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> > >> > The issue that Chris has mentioned is the only blocker
in my
> > mind. I
> > >> > >> would
> > >> > >> > like to resolve the merge performance issue but I agree
with
> Tim
> > >> that
> > >> > >> > should not hold up the release.
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > Aaron
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > On Thursday, November 20, 2014, Chris Rohr <
> rohr.chris@gmail.com
> > >> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> >> Tim,
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >> Thanks for starting this list.  I am cool with being
the RM
> for
> > >> this.
> > >> > >> >> I just got a new computer so I'll make sure my keys
are still
> > good
> > >> to
> > >> > >> >> go.
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >> As for remaining issues:
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >> 1. We are having a back pressure issue under the
following
> > >> scenario:
> > >> > >> >>     * column families are cold
> > >> > >> >>     * concurrent queries (more than 10) are issued
against the
> > cold
> > >> > >> >> families
> > >> > >> >>    This basically makes the system unusable very
quickly and
> > runs
> > >> the
> > >> > >> >> cluster to the point where it has to be restarted.
 Aaron has
> > been
> > >> > >> >> brought into the conversation to help review things
on our end
> > as
> > >> > >> >> well.
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >> 2. The console was updated to support SSL connections,
> however,
> > >> there
> > >> > >> >> is no way currently to actually enable ssl on Jetty
through
> > >> > >> >> configuration.  We may want to get that done prior
to the
> > release.
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >> Current In-work console issues that would be nice
to have:
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >> 1. Facets on the search tab
> > >> > >> >> 2. Top in the console
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >> Chris
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Tim Williams <
> > >> williamstw@gmail.com
> > >> > <javascript:;>
> > >> > >> >> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> > >> >> > I'd like to chart out what needs to be done
to kick 0.2.4
> out
> > the
> > >> > >> >> > door.  On core blur, I'm only aware of slow
merging under
> > certain
> > >> > >> >> > [extreme-ish?] conditions.
> > >> > >> >> >
> > >> > >> >> > o) I pushed a new archetype for new Commands
yesterday that
> > has
> > >> > some
> > >> > >> >> > slightly funky version bug/behavior. The archetype
just
> > creates a
> > >> > >> >> > sample command so I think we're fine shipping
with that as
> is.
> > >> > >> >> >
> > >> > >> >> > o) I think we're ok shipping with the merge
weirdness
> because
> > >> we've
> > >> > >> >> > been unable to hunt it down so far and it's
pretty rock
> solid
> > and
> > >> > only
> > >> > >> >> > presents under certain circumstances.
> > >> > >> >> >
> > >> > >> >> > o) ?
> > >> > >> >> >
> > >> > >> >> > Also, Chris, you still cool with being RM for
this one?
> > >> > >> >> >
> > >> > >> >> > Thanks,
> > >> > >> >> > --tim
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>

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