It has been a month so I am sending a 2.1 update. 10 PRs in progress. 1,166 marked as DONE. (+36) 33 left in the TODO state. I went through these and dropped some from 2.1. https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/3
3 marked as TODO as Compaction follow on work: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/13 2 in progress & 2 TODO for the Single Node ZK follow on work. https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/24 On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 11:30 AM Mike Miller <mmil...@apache.org> wrote: > Update on 2.1 progress. Come on Folks, let's Hold The Line. [1] > 14 Pull requests in progress. (-7 digression from last week) > 1,130 marked as DONE. (+19) > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/3 > > 3 marked as TODO as Compaction follow on work: > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/13 > > 2 in progress & 2 TODO for the Single Node ZK follow on work. > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/24 > > [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htgr3pvBr-I > > On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 11:25 AM Mike Miller <mmil...@apache.org> wrote: > >> 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. >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>
