quickstep-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Harshad Deshmukh <hars...@cs.wisc.edu>
Subject Re: We really need to get going with the podling report
Date Thu, 02 Mar 2017 20:33:13 GMT
Hi Julian,

Thanks for your inputs. I will modify the report accordingly and send it 
out for review.

Just an update on the release progress - Marc floated a vote for RC5 
(yesterday evening CST) on the dev list, which has gotten more than 3 
+1s so far. It appears that this release candidate (RC5) should be the 
final one, therefore I thought this week should be a realistic target 
for the release. Marc should have an idea about the next steps, so if I 
misunderstood something w.r.t the release estimates, please let me know.

On 03/02/2017 02:12 PM, Marc Spehlmann wrote:
> Hi Julian,
> I agree that 'this week' is optimistic. Though, we have been going through
> the voting process on @dev, it's likely that the current RC will not pass,
> meaning that we'll need to restart the whole process, as you said.
> Considering, 'this month' is probably a more realistic wording.
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Julian Hyde <jhyde@apache.org> wrote:
>> In answer to the “How does the podling rate their maturity?”. The
>> incubator report used to have categories "Ready to Graduate", “Some
>> Community Growth", "No Release" and "Still Getting Started.” Out of these,
>> I think “No release” fits best. You can add that the first release is well
>> under way.
>> "We will have our first release this week” is a bit optimistic. Remember
>> you need to create a release candidate, pass a vote on the Quickstep list
>> (which takes 3 working days), repeat if there is a problem with the RC, and
>> then pass a vote on the incubator list (which takes 3 working days). Again,
>> the incubator vote might fail, and in fact probably will the first or
>> second time.
>> A true statement is “we are almost ready to start a vote on our first
>> release candidate”.
>> Julian
>>> On Mar 2, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Harshad Deshmukh <harshad@cs.wisc.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Roman,
>>> Apologies for the delay. I am not sure how to address two of these
>> questions, hence left them blank. Any inputs in that regard should be
>> helpful. Can you please review the following report?
>>> *   Your project name
>>> Apache (incubating) Quickstep
>>> *   A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of
>>>     the project or necessarily of its field
>>> Apache Quickstep is high-performance database engine designed to exploit
>> the full potential
>>> of hardware that is packed in modern computing boxes (servers and
>> laptops).
>>> The initial version targets single-node in-memory environments.
>>> *   A list of the three most important issues to address in the move
>>>     towards graduation.
>>> 1) Building a Quickstep community
>>> 2) More adoption of the Quickstep technology
>>> 3) Making the technology easier to understand and use
>>> *   Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be
>>>     aware of
>>> None
>>> *   How has the community developed since the last report
>>> *   How has the project developed since the last report.
>>> We will have our first release this week. Since the last report,
>>> 1) We have made several changes to the code base.
>>> Some highlights are: Cleaning up the third party library code as per the
>> Apache hygiene, improve the code performance by adding several novel
>> features.
>>> 2) Preparation for release -
>>> Created scripts and step by step procedural documentation for how to
>> make a Quickstep release. Scripts have been added to the main repo while
>> documentation is on confluence.
>>> We went through several release candidates. During this period, we
>> identified some usability issues on our supported platforms and fixed them.
>> Quickstep is now on schedule for a release later this week.
>>> *   How does the podling rate their own maturity.
>>> On 02/28/2017 10:23 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>>>> Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
>>> --
>>> Thanks,
>>> Harshad


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