I am concerned about the tickets around 118, as there seem to be a fair amount of blockers revolving around it. What's the status of those?
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Keith Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Encryption (rest+motion), Conditional Mutations, Root tablet in its own > > table (instead of !METADATA), MiniAccumuloCluster improvements, Shell > > improvements (jcommander related), lots of other bug-fixes/improvements > and > > updates to recent Hadoop versions. > > > > Also ACCUMULO-118 and ACCUMULO-1451 > > > > > > Those are what pop out at me. > > > > > > On 10/25/13 12:49 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > >> Does anyone know off the top of their head the feature(s) that caused > 1.6 > >> to be planned as a major release in the first place? > >> > >> I see ~180 resolved issues in jira, but we don't appear to have a > shortcut > >> for flagging things as breaking. > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> I don't mind putting things off to 1.7 (if necessary). But... if 1.6.0 > >>> isn't sufficiently feature rich, there's not really a reason to > >>> release it just yet... until those features are ready. That said, I do > >>> think there'll be enough features in 1.6.0 to release it as a minor > >>> release, if we're interpreting the version as the standard > >>> <major>.<minor>.<bugfix> scheme, even if we end up pushing some stuff > >>> off to 1.7. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Christopher L Tubbs II > >>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> True, but at the same time it makes no sense to release 1.6.0 if the > >>>> features contained within are incomplete. > >>>> > >>>> There are still a number of blockers that are unresolved that would > all > >>>> > >>> fall > >>> > >>>> into the category of creating a broken 1.6.0 or having to back out > large > >>>> changesets. I know these blockers would be categorized as "bug fixes" > >>>> and > >>>> not "features", but some of these bugs are directly from new features > >>>> > >>> which > >>> > >>>> I would argue are thus still a part of this feature. > >>>> > >>>> I'm all for trying to release early and often, but I will be the guy > who > >>>> throws a wrench in the works if we do it at the sake of reducing the > >>>> > >>> quality > >>> > >>>> of our release. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 10/25/13 11:49 AM, John Vines wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I'd rather not go down the slippery slope we went down last time. > I'll > >>>>> gladly be the bad guy and say that things are getting pushed to 1.7. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> > >>>>> > >>>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> It looks like we're 50% in terms of tickets complete. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://s.apache.org/accumulo-**1.6.0-issues< > http://s.apache.org/accumulo-1.6.0-issues> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Extensions are always nice, but I'm not going to be the bad guy and > >>>>>> ask for one :) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II > >>>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:33 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Alright folks, we're down to the wire. Feature freeze is one week > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> away. > >>> > >>>> > >>>>>> If > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> anyone has any last minute concerns about this schedule, please > speak > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> up > >>> > >>>> now. Otherwise, have a great weekend! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> >
