Re: sync datacenter

I believe one lurking problem would be Scanners/BatchScanners/BatchWriters (and maybe other things reading and writing data) wouldn't notice the table name swap. Accumulo presents the "human readable" name for users, but internally references things by "table id" (see `tables -l` in the

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

Agreed. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Christopher wrote: > I think the license issues are relatively small compared to the bugfixes, > especially since we're really trying to close out 1.5.x development. So, > given the options, I'd prefer to pass RC1, and make the

[GitHub] accumulo pull request: ACCUMULO-3913 Added per table sampling

Github user keith-turner commented on a diff in the pull request: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/46#discussion_r39187156 --- Diff: core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/sample/impl/SamplerConfigurationImpl.java --- @@ -0,0 +1,181 @@ +/* + * Licensed to the

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

Thanks again for taking the time to inspect things so thoroughly, Sean. Others who have already voted, I'd ask for your opinion on whether we should sink this release (instead of me blindly going by majority rule). Personally, I'm presently of the opinion that, given the severity of the

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

I think the license issues are relatively small compared to the bugfixes, especially since we're really trying to close out 1.5.x development. So, given the options, I'd prefer to pass RC1, and make the license fixes in 1.6.x and later, as applicable. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:28 PM Josh Elser

[GitHub] accumulo pull request: ACCUMULO-3913 Added per table sampling

Github user joshelser commented on a diff in the pull request: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/46#discussion_r39188675 --- Diff: core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/sample/impl/SamplerConfigurationImpl.java --- @@ -0,0 +1,181 @@ +/* + * Licensed to the

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

-1 (nonbinding) I agree, license issues are important and it sounds like the ASF policy doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:49 PM, John Vines wrote: > -1 > > I'm with Sean on this one. Ignoring now known licensing issues because we >

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

Uh, my understanding is that a binary jar by definition is not a foundation sponsored release (it's binary). Where's the docs/history on declaring a binary jar as an official release? The omission of sizzle.js's in LICENSE and copying Thrift's NOTICE into our NOTICE for the _official source_

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

-1 I'm with Sean on this one. Ignoring now known licensing issues because we hadn't handled them in the past is not a valid excuse. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:27 PM Sean Busbey wrote: > As members of the PMC, we're required to verify all releases we approve of > meet ASF

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

I'm not suggesting ignoring the issues. I was suggesting prioritizing them after careful consideration, like we would any other problem. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:49 PM John Vines wrote: > -1 > > I'm with Sean on this one. Ignoring now known licensing issues because we >

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

Michael, I'd take some time to catch up on some mailing lists like general@incubator before passing judgement like that. It's rather hasty. Michael Ridley wrote: -1 (nonbinding) I agree, license issues are important and it sounds like the ASF policy doesn't leave a lot of room for

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

Not releasing is a viable option, but we can't encourage users to use an unreleased version of our code. That's not an appropriate substitute for releasing. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:19 PM wrote: > > If the critical issues are fixed in 1.5.x, and someone needs them, can't

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

Sean Busbey wrote: We can't tie the ability to vote -1 on a release to volunteering to fix the issue that causes a -1. Presuming a release is valued by the community, the work will get done. At the same time, it is crappy for Josh to be expected to fix everything, especially if he doesn't

[RESULT] [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

RC1 has failed due to licensing concerns. Josh Elser wrote: Also, a heads-up since I had one question about this already: you (hopefully) will notice that this was signed using a different key than previously for me. This is expected. I built this release on a virtual server (under my virtual

RE: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

I'm just looking for a way to resolve this given that we have a bunch of -1 votes and no volunteers to fix the issue. Your work is not lost if there is no release. In fact, based on what I read regarding release verification in the responses, the issue raised is the only issue that is keeping

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

Sean Busbey wrote: > So let's deal with the matter of the vote at hand first. After that we can >> deal with fixing things, hopefully with Josh abstaining. (Josh I'd >> recommend un-assigning yourself from the issue if you'd prefer someone >> else >> take it up.) >> >> > I'll likely make

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

I _think_ we put ourselves in hot-water too if that becomes a norm, but I understand the point. I just saw that as a assumption a user could do. Specifically, the user who asked for this release, James, had asked for a release which is why I was confused at your comment. dlmar...@comcast.net

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > > > Sean Busbey wrote: > >> >> > So let's deal with the matter of the vote at hand first. After that we can >> deal with fixing things, hopefully with Josh abstaining. (Josh I'd >> recommend un-assigning yourself from the

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

On Sep 10, 2015 2:07 PM, "Christopher" wrote: > > > However, I don't know where the "willful copyright infringement" comes > from. Omission of the LICENSE/NOTICE files is not necessarily an infringing > activity. They are acknowledgments/disclaimers of the legal status of

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

-1 (Hi everyone! Long time no email, hope everyone is well. I'm tasked with another project these days, but folks pointed this vote out to me.) The issues Sean brought up in ACCUMULO-3988 do seem significant enough, unfortunately, that a release should not be knowingly made with them. Especially

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

Josh, the link Sean provided does address the issue of including LICENSE/NOTICE files in the jars, and other associated artifacts. It also makes it a point to call out that this expectation does not supersede the definition of an ASF release as being source. That was a refresher I needed as well.

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

-1 (non-binding) Fix now and it'll be fixed here and in 1.6.x. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:46 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > -1 > > * signatures check out > * checksums match > * licensing errors noted in ACCUMULO-3988 > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Josh Elser

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

The larger concern I have is that expecting it to be fixed prior to 1.5.4 might mean loss of willingness to create an RC2 for 1.5.4 and release it at all. Recall, the 1.5 branch was only revived at all to fix some critical issues and move on. It's still a viable alternative to abandon 1.5.x and

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

We're responsible for all artifacts we distribute, both source releases and generated binary artifacts. It's also required that any binary bits we distribute are generated from the approved source release. So licensing problems with them are problems with the source release. We could abstain

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

-1. Having correct licences is more important than even having code that compiles (at release time). On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > On Sep 10, 2015 2:07 PM, "Christopher" wrote: > > > > > > > However, I don't know where the

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

I agree with Chris on this one. I don't see the pre-existing licensing/copyright notification issue as a blocker to a bugfix release. Definitely something we should fix as soon as we can, though. Sorry I can't give a +1 to the release -- I haven't done a thorough enough review to officially vote.

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

If the critical issues are fixed in 1.5.x, and someone needs them, can't they check out the source and build it themselves? Is that a viable option? - Original Message - From: "Christopher" To: dev@accumulo.apache.org Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 3:44:20

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

Christopher wrote: The larger concern I have is that expecting it to be fixed prior to 1.5.4 might mean loss of willingness to create an RC2 for 1.5.4 and release it at all. Recall, the 1.5 branch was only revived at all to fix some critical issues and move on. It's still a viable alternative to

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

Well.. yeah. It is open source. I don't think you needed someone to tell you that though. There are lots of issues in telling people "just build the code yourself", probably the biggest being a rather negative experience for the user. For example, I'd be frustrated if I wanted to use MySQL

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

I'd feel wrong voting on this after being out of the loop for so long, but I do think licensing issues are pretty serious. Like Bill said, hopefully it isn't too difficult to fix this. Sean H On September 10, 2015 12:38:04 PM PDT, Bill Havanki wrote: >-1 > >(Hi everyone!

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

We can't tie the ability to vote -1 on a release to volunteering to fix the issue that causes a -1. Presuming a release is valued by the community, the work will get done. At the same time, it is crappy for Josh to be expected to fix everything, especially if he doesn't want to fill the role of

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.5.4-rc1

-1 * signatures check out * checksums match * licensing errors noted in ACCUMULO-3988 On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > Accumulo Developers, > > Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo 1.5.4. > > Git Commit: >