Re: class loader issue

Hi Don, Your Java class should not end with ".class". The command should be something like below: setshelliter -class org.apache.accumulo.core.iterators.SortedKeyValueIterator -Mike On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:09 AM d resnik wrote: > I am working through setting up my local accumulo. I have

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.9.3-rc2

+1 * Verified hashes * Ran locally using Uno and tested with shell On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 7:57 PM Christopher wrote: > Accumulo Developers, > > Please consider the following candidate for Apache Accumulo 1.9.3. > > This supersedes RC1 and contains the following change: >

Re: Next Releases

+1 On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 7:21 PM Christopher wrote: > That sounds good to me. I really want to get 1.9.3 and 2.0.0 out soon. > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:11 PM Mike Miller wrote: > > > > I was thinking it would be good to release 1.9.3 this month. The last > 1.9 > > release was July 2018. >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 2.0.0-alpha-2-rc1

+1 * Verified signatures and hashes * Ran locally using Uno On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 8:09 PM Christopher wrote: > Accumulo Developers, > > Please consider the following candidate for Apache Accumulo 2.0.0-alpha-2. > > Git Commit: > 4d8405c0004c57b9c514c1f207461519cc58b3f7 > Branch: >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 2.0.0-alpha-2-rc1

The Accumulo binary tarball typically includes a proxy.thrift file: ./lib/proxy/thrift/proxy.thrift However, it looks like generated Thrift files were included for this release candidate. I am OK with this for an alpha release but I don't think these should be included in the 2.0.0 release:

Re: My new Accumulo 2 install can't find hdfs

Hi Jeffrey, It's strange that you were able to get the other services started but not the master. Is your accumulo-env.sh file set up correctly? What version of Hadoop are you using? Hadoop 3 is required for Accumulo 2.0. It looks like you initialized your Accumulo instance (using 'accumulo

Re: Slack for Accumulo

est with something similar for the Accumulo website. On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:45 PM Mike Drob wrote: > IIRC anybody who has an @a.o address can send invites. > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 4:36 PM Mike Walch wrote: > > > I am cool with an Accumulo channel on the-asf.slack.com. I was ab

Re: Slack for Accumulo

> room... hardly anybody uses it, and the few that do are lurkers only or > > bots. It doesn't make sense to continue to advertise it as a way for > > users/devs to contact us. > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 15:44 Mike Walch > > > > I would like to create a Slack c

Slack for Accumulo

I would like to create a Slack chatroom for Accumulo and advertise it on on our 'contact us' page [1] with an invite link to make it easy to join. Is anyone opposed to this? There will be no requirement that Accumulo users or developers use Slack. We currently have an IRC chatroom but it's not

Re: Remove Google Analytics from project website

to be some wider community consensus in that thread > > that we probably just shouldn't do it. > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 3:25 PM Mike Walch wrote: > > > > > > I created a pull request to remove Google Analytics tracking from the > > > project website (https://accu

Remove Google Analytics from project website

I created a pull request to remove Google Analytics tracking from the project website (https://accumulo.apache.org): https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website/pull/128 If you think Google Analytics should remain, please reply to this email or comment on the pull request.

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 2.0.0-alpha-1-rc1

+1 * Verified checksums * Verified basic functionality using Uno On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:22 PM Christopher wrote: > Accumulo Developers, > > Please consider the following candidate for Apache Accumulo 2.0.0-alpha-1. > > Note that an alpha release should satisfy all the usual ASF >

Re: [REPORT] Accumulo - October 2018

Oops. I thought I was replying to the [Draft] report email. No worries about the stats for this report. It would be good to include in the other repos in future reports. On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:16 AM Mike Walch wrote: > The accumulo-website, accumulo-testing, accumulo-exam

Re: [REPORT] Accumulo - October 2018

The accumulo-website, accumulo-testing, accumulo-examles, and accumulo-docker repos should be included in 'Issue activity' statistics. Below are updated stats and links with these repos included. ## Issue activity: - 56 issues created [3] and 31 closed [4] in the last 3 months - 106 pull

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.9.2-rc2

+1 * Verified signatures and hashes * Ran the 3 continuous ingesters successfully for 24 hours on a 10 node cluster with agitation and pausing. Verification for all 3 tests was successful. On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:30 PM Christopher wrote: > Accumulo Developers, > > Please consider the

Re: [DRAFT] [REPORT] Apache Accumulo - July 2018

> > > ## Issue activity: > > - 25 issued open and 19 closed in the last 3 months [4] > - 10 pull requests opened and 58 closed in the last 3 months [5] > > [1]: http://accumulo.apache.org/release/accumulo-1.9.0/ > [2]: http://accumulo.apache.org/release/accumulo-1.9.1 > [3]: >

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft release timeline for 2.0.0

There is more clean up work (related to my 2.0 API changes) that I want to do. Therefore, this schedule works for me. On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 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

Re: [DRAFT][ANNOUNCE] Apache Accumulo 1.9.1 (Critical Bug Fixes)

+1 On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Ed Coleman wrote: > +1 > > -Original Message- > From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb...@apache.org] > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 3:50 AM > To: accumulo-dev > Subject: Re: [DRAFT][ANNOUNCE] Apache Accumulo 1.9.1

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.9.1-rc1

+1 * Verified checksums & signatures * Ran release locally using Uno * Built Fluo and ran ITs using release On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Christopher wrote: > Accumulo Developers, > > Please consider the following candidate for Apache Accumulo 1.9.1. > > Git Commit: >

Re: Let's do a 1.9.1 release

+1 On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Christopher wrote: > Hi Devs, > > I'd like to do a 1.9.1 release to fix the recently discovered write-ahead > log issues, some of which are critical: > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93=label%3Av1.9.1 > > I can

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.9.0-rc1

t follow all the "SHOULD" statements for the Maven > staging > > > area. > > > > > > [1]: https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/ > > > [2]: https://accumulo.apache.org/downloads/ > > > [3]: https://checker.apache.org/dist/unsummed.html > >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.9.0-rc1

+1 * Verified sha1 & md5 hashes matched * Verified signatures * Ran binary tarball locally using Uno * Ran 'mvn verify' successfully for wikisearch using RC jars On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:21 PM, Christopher wrote: > Accumulo Developers, > > Please consider the following

Re: Export control disclaimer in README

ality within their products or specially designing their products > to use other software with cryptographic functionality should take the > following steps." It seems like we fall under the "specially designed" > category. > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:58 AM, Mike

Re: Export control disclaimer in README

; On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Mike Walch <mwa...@apache.org> wrote: > > > The Accumulo README.md[1] has an export control disclaimer. Does anyone > > know the reasoning for it? Would anyone be opposed if it was removed? > > > > [1]: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/blob/master/README.md > > >

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.4-rc1

+1 * Verified sha1 & md5 hashes matched * Verified signatures * Succesfully ran 1.7.4 binary locally using Uno On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Christopher wrote: > Accumulo Developers, > > Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo 1.7.4. > > Git Commit: >

Re: Welcome Nick Felts, new committer/PMC

Welcome Nick! On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Keith Turner wrote: > Accumulo devs, > > Please join me in welcoming Nick Felts as a new Accumulo committer+PMC > member! > > Nick has made many improvements to RFile and encryption. Surely no > one would ever do this, but if

Re: Welcome Mark Owens (new committer)

Welcome Mark! On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 5:52 PM, Christopher wrote: > Accumulo devs, > > Please join me in welcoming Mark Owens, one of our newest Apache Accumulo > committers (and PMC member)! > > Mark has been contributing many various fixes to bugs throughout Accumulo's >

New committer: Luis Tavarez

Join me in welcoming Luis Tavarez as a new Apache Accumulo committer and PMC member! Luis worked on a major refactor of the Accumulo monitor for the upcoming 2.0 release. Thanks for your contributions so far, Luis!

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

ment on our website how users should report >security issues. I am not sure this is done at the moment. Since this >is infrequent I think we can handle this on the private list. I think >our workflow should be optimized for frequent actions and not infrequent >ones. > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

still don't see the benefit to changing). > > > On 3/1/18 2:41 PM, Mike Walch wrote: > >> I would like to start up this discussion again. I don't think we have >> reached consensus on moving the primary Accumulo repo to GitHub issues. >> The >> primary repo has common wor

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

://github.com/apache/accumulo-testing https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website https://github.com/apache/accumulo-wikisearch On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Mike Walch <mwa...@apache.org> wrote: >

Re: [DISCUSS] Release 1.7.4 and the 1.9.0

I opened a pull request for the 1.7.4 release notes if anyone wants to review. https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website/pull/58 This is a just a start. More can be added to them later. On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Mike Walch <mwa...@apache.org> wrote: > +1. I think your dates

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

storical purposes. > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:26 PM, Mike Walch <mwa...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I want step back a little. I don't view this as just changing our issue > > tracker. I want to move to GitHub issues as I see a lot of benefit in > using > > one to

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed formatter change: 100 char lines

+1. I prefer a 100 character column limit. It's also the standard in the Google Java Style Guide: https://google.github.io/styleguide/javaguide.html#s4.4-column-limit On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 8:29 AM, J. Mark Owens wrote: > I would be in favor of this change. As my eyes

Re: [DISCUSS] Release 1.7.4 and the 1.9.0

+1. I think your dates are good deadlines. We should start the process sooner if everyone is ready. I can help work on the release notes for both releases. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:10 PM, Ed Coleman wrote: > I'd like to propose that we start the release process for 1.7.4

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

I want step back a little. I don't view this as just changing our issue tracker. I want to move to GitHub issues as I see a lot of benefit in using one tool to manage issues, view/browse code, and review pull requests. One tool makes contributing to open source so much easier. I think it will

[DISCUSS] Switch to GitHub issues after trial

I would like to open discussion on moving from Jira to GitHub issues. GitHub issues would be enabled for a trial period. After this trial period, the project would either move completely to GitHub issues or keep using Jira. Two issue trackers would not be used after trial period.

Re: Additional options for issue tracking

. > > > > On 2/14/18 4:29 PM, Mike Drob wrote: > > > @josh - How do you feel about move from JIRA to GH Issues completely? > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > >> I believe I

Re: Additional options for issue tracking

rg> wrote: > > > > > >> I believe I already stated -1 the last time this was brought up. > > >> > > >> Using two issue trackers is silly. > > >> > > >> > > >> On 2/14/18 3:30 PM, Mike Walch wrote: >

Re: Additional options for issue tracking

ke sure we give everyone time to discuss before making this change. > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:31 PM Mike Walch <mwa...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I want to enable GitHub issues for Accumulo's repos. This is not to > replace > > JIRA but to give contrib

Additional options for issue tracking

I want to enable GitHub issues for Accumulo's repos. This is not to replace JIRA but to give contributors more options for issue tracking. Unless there are objections, I will create an infra ticket this week.

Release planning pages

I created pages on the Accumulo website to plan major work for upcoming releases and document the major tasks that have been completed (for the release notes). Below are links to the pages: https://accumulo.apache.org/release/accumulo-2.0.0/ https://accumulo.apache.org/release/accumulo-1.9.0/

Re: Broken test

I am seeing the same thing. TravisCI runs for every commit to master and marks if the build passed or failed below: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/commits/master It looks like Keith might have a fix. Feb 7, 2018 at 4:13 PM, J. Mark Owens wrote: > I cloned the latest

Re: Draft Board Report for Jan 2018

Could mention an Accumulo tour was created for the website https://accumulo.apache.org/tour/ On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 8:38 PM, Michael Wall wrote: > The Apache Accumulo PMC decided to draft its quarterly board > reports on the dev list. Here is a draft of our report which is

Re: Updated Accumulo People page

the importance of that type of contribution vs others. > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Mike Walch <mwa...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I made some updates to the Accumulo people page. > > > > https://accumulo.apache.org/people/ > > > > I remo

Updated Accumulo People page

I made some updates to the Accumulo people page. https://accumulo.apache.org/people/ I removed the 'username' column for contributors and changed the column name to 'apache id' for committers. In the future, committers and contributors can have their name link to their GitHub profile. If you

Re: Jekyll issues

Hi Mark, Did you try the command 'bundle exec jekyll serve'? Otherwise, you need to have your dependencies perfectly installed. Also, take a look at https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website/blob/master/README.md The documentation at https://accumulo.apache.org/contributor/source should just

Re: Assign myself to work ACCUMULO-2907

Have created a Apache Jira account yet? Below is the url where you can setup an account. https://issues.apache.org/jira/login.jsp The Accumulo Jira is a project under Apache Jira. Anyone can create an account on Apache Jira. After you create an account, you should be able to assign yourself

Accumulo Docker image

I recently created a Docker image for Apache Fluo and I would like to do the same for Accumulo. If you are interested, I created ACCUMULO-4706[1] for this work and started to work on the Dockerfile in a GitHub repo[2]. I am not an Docker expert so feedback is welcome. I also plan to make some

Staging draft release notes on website

The Accumulo website has been updated to stage draft release notes for future Accumulo releases. While these pages are visible, there a no links to them on the website and they contain warnings if a user stumbles upon them: https://accumulo.apache.org/release/accumulo-1.8.2/

Re: GitHub notifications

I think you are getting emails from GitHub as you are watching the repo. https://github.com/apache/accumulo/watchers If you don't want to receive these emails, you should unwatch the repo. When we switched to GitBox, you might have been automatically

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

ime > we had this discussion? Not saying no here, curious as to why you think we > should revisit though. > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Mike Walch <mwa...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I think we should revisit the discussion of using Apache GitBox for > > Accumulo. If you

[DISCUSS] GitBox

I think we should revisit the discussion of using Apache GitBox for Accumulo. If you are unfamiliar with it, GitBox enables better GitHub integration for Apache projects. With GitBox, committers can label GitHub pull requests, squash and merge them using the GitHub UI, and close them if they

Re: New committer/PMC: Ivan Bella

Congrats Ivan! On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:29 PM Dylan Hutchison wrote: > Yes, Ivan, welcome to the family you already have :) > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Marc wrote: > > > Congrats! > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:23 PM,

Re: [DISCUSS] Question about 1.7 bugfix releases

My examples in my last email assume that 1.8 is the first LTS branch. I think this makes sense as 1.8 should be the last 1.x release. On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:52 PM Mike Walch <mwa...@apache.org> wrote: > This debate seems to come up frequently and the viewpoints expressed seem >

Re: [DISCUSS] Question about 1.7 bugfix releases

This debate seems to come up frequently and the viewpoints expressed seem to represent one of two groups of Accumulo users: 1. conservative, enterprise users that want to avoid upgrades and want long-term support. 2. early adopters and developers that want frequent minor releases as they are

Re: [DISCUSS] Pull Request Guidelines

I agree with Christopher about avoiding strict guidelines for reviews but having some loose guidelines/advice for reviewers. One thing that I have found helpful is when reviewers communicate how strongly they feel about a change: - If the change is optional: Could add a unit test for this

Re: Pull request guidelines

There is some documentation on reviews in the "Review Board" page of the contributor guide. https://accumulo.apache.org/contributor/rb This documentation should be cleaned up and generalized for reviews that are done using Review Board or GitHub. On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:02 AM Dave Marion

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

wouldn't be as big a deal. > > I would be willing to try it out better GH integration. I love the PR > review. > > Mike > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 7:54 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I agree with Mike here, but to be clear, that's not what I was

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

I prefer GithHub issues over JIRA. Apache JIRA is slow, has a bloated UI, and it's annoying that it doesn't remember my session and I have to re-login daily. I think new developers (esp those unfamiliar with Apache) are more likely to report/work on issues if they were on GitHub as most non-Apache

Re: [DISCUSS] Move user manual source to Accumulo website repo

the time, it's OK but not required. On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:51 AM Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, Mike. I this helped solidify some of the confusion over the > ambiguity of how this would work as a developer that I had. > > Mike Walch wrote: > > I was

Re: [DISCUSS] Move user manual source to Accumulo website repo

ranch? Would `master` of accumulo-website include $x copies of the > user-manual? > > Mike Walch wrote: > > This change is also part of a larger plan of mine to refactor the > > documentation. After the user manual is moved to the website, I would > like > > to refactor it and make

Re: [DISCUSS] Move user manual source to Accumulo website repo

ng more of a standard > than asciidoc. > * Documentation changes that affect multiple releases can be made with > one PR. > > Cons > * Documentation will no longer ship with tarball > * Developers cannot update code and docs in one PR > > > Mike Walch wrote: > > For

[DISCUSS] Move user manual source to Accumulo website repo

For 2.0, I would like convert user manual source from asciidoc to markdown and move it to the accumulo-website to be served using Jekyll. While I will put these changes up for review, I would like to see if anyone has any major objections or suggestions before I start work on it (I do not want to

Re: [GitHub] accumulo-website.git pull request #8

cumulo-examples, etc.. Mike Walch wrote: > What are you looking for? An email to the dev list if a PR is created? > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:40 PM Josh Elser<els...@apache.org> wrote: > >> "trucemop" pinged me that a pull-request was put up, but it seems

Re: [GitHub] accumulo-website.git pull request #8

te.git repo? > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website/pull/8 > > Mike Walch/Christopher -- do you know if we maybe missed requesting some > ASF GH-integration? > > - Josh >

Re: [VOTE] 1.8.1-rc1

+1 * Verified hashes and signatures * Ran local cluster using binary release On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:05 PM Michael Wall wrote: > Accumulo Developers, > > Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo 1.8.1. There are no > changed to the artifacts since RC0. > > Git

Changes to external test code in 2.0.0

For Accumulo 2.0.0, I moved the external Accumulo test suites such as continuous ingest and random walk to a new accumulo-testing repo[1]. In addition to moving the code to a new repo, I changed how these tests are deployed and run. They used to ship in the Accumulo tarball (in the test

Re: Updates to Accumulo scripts for 2.0

cation by any means possible. Granted, I > > don't have to maintain production clusters or distributions like CDH > > so I'd imagine others might not share the same sentiment. > > > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Mike Walch <mwa...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi

Updates to Accumulo scripts for 2.0

Hi Everyone, I started work on on simplifying the Accumulo scripts and configuration files for the 2.0 release. Given that this change could impact many, I wanted to solicit feedback early in the process. Below is the JIRA issue for this work and a pull request with some initial code:

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.8.0-rc2

+1 (non-binding) * check hashes and verified signature for bin package * ran release locally with Uno * built and ran integration tests for Fluo and Fluo Recipes using release In this release, the upgrade of Thrift to 1.9.3 caused tests to fail for Fluo until I upgraded Fluo to use Thrift 1.9.3.

Re: Review Request 30236: Reorganize README

into it's own file. - Mike Walch On Jan. 27, 2015, 4:13 p.m., kturner wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30236

Re: Review Request 30236: Reorganize README

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30236/#review69784 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Mike Walch On Jan. 26, 2015, 11:47 p.m

Re: Review Request 30236: Reorganize README

started using Accumulo, review the [example][link] and the [javadoc][link] for the` README.md https://reviews.apache.org/r/30236/#comment114366 could be put these in a `docs/` directory - Mike Walch On Jan. 24, 2015, 1:06 a.m., kturner wrote

Re: Growing project involvement

A getting started guide would be nice. It might also be cool to script and simplify common Accumulo developer tasks. I created something similar for Fluo developers: https://github.com/fluo-io/fluo-dev The fluo-dev project makes it easy to download, configure, and run Fluo dependencies (i.e