On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > This makes me very worried. > > What's the expectation for how the release notes will come to include work > being tracked via GitHub?
For creating the 2.0.0 release notes we will need to query Jira and GitHub. After 2.0.0 is release we can make Jira read only. Jira only needs to remain writable until all branches that were open when the transition to GH issues started are released. > > Do we expect the release manager will go through things and update it as a > part of make a release candidate? I am assuming "it" is the release notes. I do not expect the RM to do this alone, I plan to help write the release notes. > > Should we be more proactive in getting release note details from > contributors? That would be a good thing to do. Could point them to the docs you mentioned, if we had them. > > Should committers be filling these in as a part of accepting a PR? My wish is that the committer at least properly labels the issue as an improvement for the correct versions so it can be found later via query. I forget to do this sometimes, luckily others catch my mistakes. > > None of these get called out in the places I'd expect to find them: > > http://accumulo.apache.org/how-to-contribute/ > > http://accumulo.apache.org/contributor/making-release > > http://accumulo.apache.org/contributors-guide/ > I think it would be useful to provide pointers in the contributor guide on how to update the release notes for new features. > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Mike Miller <michaelpmil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Those release notes don't include all the work being tracked on GitHub >> issues and PRs. >> >> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:20 AM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:46 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > > I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of meeting deadlines when the >> > > criteria for "success" is undefined. >> > > >> > > >> > Why? I proposed the timeline to solicit opinions on it. Use whatever >> > subjective criteria you want to inform your own. If you have criteria >> that >> > you think won't be satisfied within that timeline, then raise them for >> > discussion. >> > >> > If Jira is overburdened, move everything out and have people move things >> > > back. We have multiple tools -- we should at least have one in use. >> > > Otherwise, this just seems like there are decisions happening behind >> the >> > > scenes. >> > > >> > > >> > You lost me. Every release, we triage (finish, reject, or bump) open >> > issues; nobody's done that yet for 2.0. That's all I was talking about >> with >> > regard to the issue tracker noise. >> > >> > >> > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 7:52 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: >> > > >> > > > I do not expect that page to be a complete or final set of features >> > right >> > > > now, but it's probably better than the issue tracker is (because of >> all >> > > the >> > > > noise of old issues). Part of the goal of this thread was to motivate >> > > > people to start finalizing that set over the next few weeks as they >> > > triage >> > > > open issues and think about what they can realistically finish in the >> > > > timeline we establish. The hope is that the page will become more and >> > > more >> > > > complete as head more strongly towards this release. >> > > > >> > > > As for the timeline, I have no problem moving the time table up if we >> > > get a >> > > > bit further along and realize we're in a good place to release. I >> just >> > > > don't like the pressure of unrealistically short timelines, and I >> know >> > > that >> > > > personally, my summer is going to be very busy regardless. >> Initially, I >> > > was >> > > > hoping we could release around September 1st... but then I figured >> add >> > a >> > > > month for dedicated testing and documentation might be nice... and >> we'd >> > > > still release before the summit. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:36 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Based on that, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4733 >> > is >> > > > > the only thing outstanding (and just one question at that). >> > > > > >> > > > > Mid/late August seems like a long time until feature-complete for >> > > > > essentially a no-op of work :) >> > > > > >> > > > > On 6/11/18 5:07 PM, Christopher wrote: >> > > > > > I believe those are being maintained in the draft release notes >> at >> > > > > > https://accumulo.apache.org/release/accumulo-2.0.0/ >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:02 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> What are the current 2.0.0 features? (Outstanding and completed) >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> On 6/11/18 4:35 PM, Christopher wrote: >> > > > > >>> Hi Accumulo Devs, >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> I've been thinking about the 2.0.0 release timeline. I was >> > thinking >> > > > > >>> something like this milestone timeline: >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> Feature Complete : mid-late August >> > > > > >>> Dedicated Testing, Documentation, and release voting : all of >> > > > September >> > > > > >>> Final release : October 1st >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> This schedule would make 2.0.0 available for the Accumulo >> Summit >> > > > coming >> > > > > >> up >> > > > > >>> in October, with a few weeks to spare. >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > -- > busbey
