Update on 2.1 progress. 7 Pull requests in progress. 1111 marked as DONE. ( I just missed sending this at 11:11 EST) https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/3
3 marked as TODO as Compaction follow on work: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/13 2 marked as TODO for the Single Node ZK follow on work. https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/24 On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 9:38 AM Mike Miller <mmil...@apache.org> wrote: > Update on 2.1 progress. > 10 Pull Requests in progress. > 1,097 marked as DONE. > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/3 > > 3 Tickets marked as TODO as Compaction follow on work: > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/13 > > Only 1 Ticket marked as TODO for the ZK follow on work. I thought there > would be more here: > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/24 > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 7:00 AM Mike Miller <mmil...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Update on 2.1 progress. For pull requests: >> 15 currently in progress. >> 32 are open as TODO. But a lot of these will get bumped to the next >> version. >> 1,025 DONE. Wow! Good work everyone. >> >> https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/3 >> >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 4:55 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> After some additional consideration, and getting a better understanding >>> of >>> how the code is expected to work from discussing it with Dave... I'm a >>> little more inclined to support #2422 in 2.1, provided: >>> >>> 1. There's time for me to review it, >>> 2. It is sufficiently decoupled from the existing code and marked >>> experimental, so that we have the flexibility to alter its design, if it >>> seems appropriate after it gets some exposure after the release, >>> 3. Unit tests and integration tests are reliably passing (as stable as, >>> or >>> more stable than, they are currently), >>> 4. No serious issues are discovered during review, and >>> 5. It doesn't delay a release past early June, as I think this is a >>> reasonable target date. >>> >>> This my wishlist before I can get behind it with a +1 for 2.1. If these >>> aren't met, I do not intend to veto, but I'd be a -0 on its inclusion to >>> 2.1. Of course, once I review it, my thoughts may change a bit. >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 7:07 PM Mike Miller <mmil...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> > I think I can finish the FATE refactor PR [1] for 2.1. I had been >>> keeping >>> > it up to date with the latest in main but stopped because it was too >>> much >>> > work. I was waiting until the ZK property changes are completed before >>> > resolving the latest conflicts. I don't think it is much of a risk. It >>> is >>> > mostly cleanup and refactoring to remove generics from the >>> serialization >>> > code. It will be some work to revisit but I think the risk is pretty >>> low. >>> > It would allow changing the serialization, which we may be able to get >>> into >>> > 2.1 as well. >>> > >>> > [1] https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2475 >>> > >>> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 11:50 AM Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 11:17 AM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > I haven't seen the metrics test fail very often lately. If it's >>> > stable, I >>> > > > don't mind removing the blocker on that issue, but I'd be >>> reluctant to >>> > > > close it entirely just yet, until we can verify it doesn't happen >>> > > anymore. >>> > > > >>> > > > As for the original list of potential issues to include, I'm in >>> favor >>> > of >>> > > > trying to get #2197 in. It was started awhile ago, is relatively >>> simple >>> > > and >>> > > > well understood by several of us already... it just needs a bit of >>> > > > attention to finalize reviews so it can be merged. >>> > > > >>> > > > However, I'm reluctant to include #2422, because I don't think it's >>> > near >>> > > > ready enough, and by the time it is, it will be very last minute, >>> and I >>> > > > don't want to delay 2.1 further for it. Even if it's included as an >>> > > > experimental feature, I think it has huge potential to be >>> disruptive, >>> > or >>> > > to >>> > > > have a lot of churn by the time people actually have a chance to >>> review >>> > > it >>> > > > thoroughly. Furthermore, I think there are possible alternatives >>> (like >>> > a >>> > > > fully client-side implementation, based on offline scanners) that >>> would >>> > > > avoid the tight coupling of a new service to Accumulo's core code. >>> This >>> > > >>> > > There are some advantages to scan servers over direct file access to >>> > > consider. One is scalability of computation, if a web server is >>> > > serving N client queries with scan servers those can potentially go >>> to >>> > > different scan servers. With direct file access, all N queries and >>> > > their iterator stacks would have to run in the web server. Another >>> is >>> > > scalability of caching/memory. When web servers send queries to scan >>> > > servers using a sticky algorithm for assigning tablets to groups of >>> > > scan servers, it could lead to good cache utilization and sharing >>> that >>> > > may not be possible when running scans directly in the web server. So >>> > > scan servers allow scaling cache and computations for queries >>> > > independently of web servers in way that may not be possible with >>> > > direct file access. >>> > > >>> > > Another advantage to consider is isolation. With direct file access >>> > > and queries running directly in a web server, a bad query could bring >>> > > down a web server and lots of unrelated queries. Having a bad query >>> > > bring down a scan server may be less disruptive. >>> > > >>> > > > thread isn't for discussing this in depth, so we can have that >>> > discussion >>> > > > in a separate thread, but I'm generally opposed to including it >>> this >>> > late >>> > > > in 2.1's development, given the timing, size and scope, tight >>> coupling, >>> > > and >>> > > > current state. >>> > > > >>> > > > I don't know enough about #2475 to have a strong opinion, but it >>> looks >>> > > big, >>> > > > and possibly high-risk, given the critical code it touches. It >>> > currently >>> > > > has a substantial number of conflicts with the main branch. >>> However, I >>> > > was >>> > > > thinking that *some* minimal refactoring (like low-risk automatic >>> > > > refactoring, like moving packages) could be done. So, if that's all >>> > this >>> > > > does, it might be okay. Otherwise, maybe it can be simplified? At >>> the >>> > > very >>> > > > least, I was thinking it would be a good opportunity to move the >>> > > > `org.apache.accumulo.fate` packages into an appropriate >>> > > > `org.apache.accumulo.core` parent package (some would go to >>> > > o.a.a.core.fate >>> > > > and others might go to o.a.a.core.util or similar) to keep the >>> package >>> > > > namespaces standardized, which is helpful to avoid naming >>> collisions >>> > and >>> > > > jar sealing issues, as well as for less complicated jigsaw module >>> > > > definitions in future. Since 2.1 FaTE is already incompatible with >>> > prior >>> > > > versions, a rename at this time would be less disruptive. >>> > > > >>> > > > Another task I had wanted to be done for 2.1, before I got >>> distracted >>> > > > fixing test failures during and after Christmas and trying to work >>> > > through >>> > > > the singleton manager zookeeper stuff to see what we could >>> simplify. >>> > > What I >>> > > > had wanted done was to standardize the way we pass table >>> identifiers >>> > > (name, >>> > > > IDs) across the RPC layer, since we currently do that >>> inconsistently. I >>> > > > don't remember if there's an existing ticket open for it, but I >>> have a >>> > > > working branch I had started working out of for it before >>> Christmas. >>> > It's >>> > > > relatively simple work, and would set us up for some much better >>> APIs >>> > > going >>> > > > forward, as well as help with logging information about table >>> actions. >>> > If >>> > > > necessary, it could be bumped to a future version, but then we'd >>> have >>> > > more >>> > > > churn in the thrift layer. So, I'd prefer to get it for 2.1 to >>> avoid >>> > > that. >>> > > > >>> > > > As for planning, I was thinking early May for a code freeze >>> (except bug >>> > > > fixes and small improvements found during testing), so we can try >>> to >>> > > > release towards the end of May/early June. If we go with that >>> timeline, >>> > > > that's not a lot of time to wrap up features and have time for >>> > > > review/testing, so we may need to be selective about what we hold >>> off >>> > > until >>> > > > the next version, unless we want to further delay 2.1. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 9:13 AM Dave Marion <dmario...@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > > I think [3] is OBE and can be closed. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 9:11 AM Mike Miller <mmil...@apache.org> >>> > wrote: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > Yes I agree, that was the goal of this email thread. I found a >>> few >>> > > more >>> > > > > > tickets that should be addressed for the next release. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Ivan - There was some work done on this PR but it has been some >>> > > time. Do >>> > > > > > you want to take a look at it? Implement a Thread limit. [1] >>> > > > > > Keith T - I think we should get this one merged to fix that >>> > > consistency >>> > > > > > check bug I found. It looks like it is finished. [2] >>> > > > > > Dave & Dom - Were you guys able to figure out a fix for the new >>> > > external >>> > > > > > compaction metrics test? [3] >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > FYI we have 6 blockers for 2.1: >>> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/labels/blocker >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > This is almost definitely going into 2.1 [4]. Thanks Jeff! >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/1487 >>> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2574 >>> > > > > > [3] https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues/2406 >>> > > > > > [4] https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2215 >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 2:21 PM Dave Marion < >>> dmario...@gmail.com> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > I think it would be useful to do some release planning so >>> that we >>> > > know >>> > > > > > what >>> > > > > > > features we are working towards and in which release they >>> will be >>> > > in. >>> > > > > > This >>> > > > > > > would be helpful for determining what existing PRs need to >>> make >>> > it >>> > > into >>> > > > > > > 2.1.0. 2.1.0 is the LTM release, so patches for existing >>> features >>> > > will >>> > > > > be >>> > > > > > > backported (2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, etc.) However, as defined in >>> > [1], >>> > > > > > features >>> > > > > > > that don't make it into 2.1.0 will go into the next non-LTM >>> > release >>> > > > > > (2.2.0) >>> > > > > > > and any patches to bugs in those features will go into the >>> next >>> > > non-LTM >>> > > > > > > release after that (2.3.0). >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > I'm not trying to hold up the 2.1.0 release by suggesting >>> that we >>> > > > > perform >>> > > > > > > this activity. I'm just asking what the future holds, even if >>> > it's >>> > > just >>> > > > > > one >>> > > > > > > feature in the next non-LTM release. My concern is that the >>> next >>> > > > > release >>> > > > > > > will be open-ended and anything not included in 2.1.0 might >>> not >>> > > get put >>> > > > > > > into a release for a very long time. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > [1] >>> https://accumulo.apache.org/contributor/versioning.html#LTM >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 11:43 AM Mike Miller < >>> mmil...@apache.org >>> > > >>> > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > Starting an email chain of things that folks want to >>> finish for >>> > > 2.1. >>> > > > > > Here >>> > > > > > > > is what we currently have in the works that are most likely >>> > going >>> > > > > into >>> > > > > > > 2.1: >>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2569 >>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2600 >>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2293 >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > Some things that may go into 2.1: >>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2422 >>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2475 >>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2197 >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > I created a Project for follow on work to the ZK property >>> > > change. I >>> > > > > was >>> > > > > > > > planning on putting tasks in there that we want to >>> complete for >>> > > 2.1. >>> > > > > > But >>> > > > > > > we >>> > > > > > > > could also use it for post 2.1 work. >>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/24 >>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues/2469 >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > FYI a draft copy of the release notes has already been on >>> the >>> > > > > website: >>> > > > > > > > https://accumulo.apache.org/release/accumulo-2.1.0/ >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > This may be a good thread to discuss whether or not a task >>> > needs >>> > > to >>> > > > > go >>> > > > > > > into >>> > > > > > > > 2.1 or should wait for the next version. We currently have >>> 32 >>> > > open >>> > > > > pull >>> > > > > > > > requests so please email me if there is one that you would >>> like >>> > > > > > > prioritized >>> > > > > > > > for 2.1. >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >>
