Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?
Frankly, planning a release without even an idea of what is going into it seems like a waste of time to me. I didn't ask these questions to try to squash such a release; I don't think they're particularly difficult to figure out. Just curious what the release notes would look like (as a user, this is what I would care about). I don't think I'm alone. On Mon, Oct 8, 2018, 19:33 Christopher wrote: > I don't know the answers to these questions. I just want to put a > stake in the ground before the Accumulo Summit, so we have a basis for > evaluation and testing, and answering some of these unknowns. > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:28 AM Josh Elser wrote: > > > > I would like to know what the scope of 2.0 is. Specifically: > > > > * What's new in this 2.0 alpha that people that is driving the release? > > * Is there anything else expected to land post-alpha/pre-GA? > > > > On 10/6/18 1:36 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > yes alphas please. Do we want to talk about expectations on time > > > between alpha releases? What kind of criteria for beta or GA? > > > > > > a *lot* has changed in the 2.0 codebase. > > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:45 AM Ed Coleman wrote: > > >> > > >> +1 > > >> > > >> In addition to the reasons stated by Christopher, I think that it > also provides a clearer signal to earlier adopters that the public API > *may* change before the formal release. With a formal release candidate, I > interpret that it signals that only bug-fixes would occur up and until the > formal release. > > >> > > >> With the length of time that we take between minor and patch > releases, the even longer time that it takes the customer base to upgrade > and development cost that we have supporting multiple branches, taking some > extra time now to solicit feedback seems prudent. While the specifics and > implications of semver are clear, sometimes it seems that there is > additional weight and additional perceived risk when changing major > versions, an alpha version preserves our flexibility while still moving > forward. > > >> > > >> Ed Coleman > > >> > > >> -Original Message- > > >> From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb...@apache.org] > > >> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 12:28 AM > > >> To: accumulo-dev > > >> Subject: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha? > > >> > > >> Hi Accumulo devs, > > >> > > >> I'm thinking about initiating a vote next week for a 2.0.0-alpha > release, so we can have an official ASF release (albeit without the usual > stability expectations as a normal release) to be available for the > upcoming Accumulo Summit. > > >> > > >> An alpha version would signal our progress towards 2.0.0 final, serve > as a basis for testing, and give us something to share with a wider > audience to solicit feedback on the API, configuration, and module changes. > Of course, it would still have to meet ASF release requirements... like > licensing and stuff, and it should essentially work (so people can actually > run tests), but in an alpha release, we could tolerate flaws we wouldn't in > a final release. > > >> > > >> Ideally, I would have preferred a 2.0.0 final at this point in the > year, but I think it needs more testing. > > >> > > >> Does an alpha release next week seem reasonable to you? > > >> > > >> Christopher > > >> > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?
I don't know the answers to these questions. I just want to put a stake in the ground before the Accumulo Summit, so we have a basis for evaluation and testing, and answering some of these unknowns. On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:28 AM Josh Elser wrote: > > I would like to know what the scope of 2.0 is. Specifically: > > * What's new in this 2.0 alpha that people that is driving the release? > * Is there anything else expected to land post-alpha/pre-GA? > > On 10/6/18 1:36 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > yes alphas please. Do we want to talk about expectations on time > > between alpha releases? What kind of criteria for beta or GA? > > > > a *lot* has changed in the 2.0 codebase. > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:45 AM Ed Coleman wrote: > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> In addition to the reasons stated by Christopher, I think that it also > >> provides a clearer signal to earlier adopters that the public API *may* > >> change before the formal release. With a formal release candidate, I > >> interpret that it signals that only bug-fixes would occur up and until the > >> formal release. > >> > >> With the length of time that we take between minor and patch releases, the > >> even longer time that it takes the customer base to upgrade and > >> development cost that we have supporting multiple branches, taking some > >> extra time now to solicit feedback seems prudent. While the specifics and > >> implications of semver are clear, sometimes it seems that there is > >> additional weight and additional perceived risk when changing major > >> versions, an alpha version preserves our flexibility while still moving > >> forward. > >> > >> Ed Coleman > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb...@apache.org] > >> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 12:28 AM > >> To: accumulo-dev > >> Subject: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha? > >> > >> Hi Accumulo devs, > >> > >> I'm thinking about initiating a vote next week for a 2.0.0-alpha release, > >> so we can have an official ASF release (albeit without the usual stability > >> expectations as a normal release) to be available for the upcoming > >> Accumulo Summit. > >> > >> An alpha version would signal our progress towards 2.0.0 final, serve as a > >> basis for testing, and give us something to share with a wider audience to > >> solicit feedback on the API, configuration, and module changes. Of course, > >> it would still have to meet ASF release requirements... like licensing and > >> stuff, and it should essentially work (so people can actually run tests), > >> but in an alpha release, we could tolerate flaws we wouldn't in a final > >> release. > >> > >> Ideally, I would have preferred a 2.0.0 final at this point in the year, > >> but I think it needs more testing. > >> > >> Does an alpha release next week seem reasonable to you? > >> > >> Christopher > >> > > > >
[DRAFT] [REPORT] Apache Accumulo - Oct 2018
The Apache Accumulo PMC decided to draft its quarterly board reports on the dev list. Here is a draft of our report which is due by Wednesday, Oct 10, 1 week before the board meeting on Wednesday, Oct 17. Please let me know if you have any suggestions. I will submit this Wed morning. Thanks Mike -- ## Description: - The Apache Accumulo sorted, distributed key/value store is a robust, scalable, high performance data storage system that features cell-based access control and customizable server-side processing. It is based on Google's BigTable design and is built on top of Apache Hadoop, Zookeeper, and Thrift. ## Issues: - There are no issues requiring board attention at this time. ## Activity: - There was 1 new releases, Accumulo 1.9.2 since the last report [1]. - There were no new committers since the last report. All committers are also PMC members. - The fifth annual Accumulo Summit will be held on Oct 15 in Columbia, MD [2]. ## Health report: - The project remains healthy. Activity levels on mailing lists, issues and pull requests remain constant. ## PMC changes: - Currently 34 PMC members. - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months - Last PMC addition was Nick Felts on Thu Mar 22 2018 ## Committer base changes: - All committers are PMC members ## Releases: - accumulo-1.9.2 was released on Wed Jul 18 2018 ## Mailing list activity: - Nothing significant in the figures ## Issue activity: - 39 issues created [3] and 25 issued [4] closed in the last 3 months - 81 pull requests created [5] and 81 closed [6] in the last 3 months [1]: https://accumulo.apache.org/release/accumulo-1.9.2/ [2]: http://accumulosummit.com/ [3]: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93=is%3Aissue+created%3A2018-07-18..2018-10-17+ [4]: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93=is%3Aissue+closed%3A2018-07-18..2018-10-17+ [5]: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pulls?q=is%3Apr+created%3A2018-07-18..2018-10-17 [6]: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pulls?q=is%3Apr+closed%3A2018-07-18..2018-10-17
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?
I would like to know what the scope of 2.0 is. Specifically: * What's new in this 2.0 alpha that people that is driving the release? * Is there anything else expected to land post-alpha/pre-GA? On 10/6/18 1:36 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: yes alphas please. Do we want to talk about expectations on time between alpha releases? What kind of criteria for beta or GA? a *lot* has changed in the 2.0 codebase. On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:45 AM Ed Coleman wrote: +1 In addition to the reasons stated by Christopher, I think that it also provides a clearer signal to earlier adopters that the public API *may* change before the formal release. With a formal release candidate, I interpret that it signals that only bug-fixes would occur up and until the formal release. With the length of time that we take between minor and patch releases, the even longer time that it takes the customer base to upgrade and development cost that we have supporting multiple branches, taking some extra time now to solicit feedback seems prudent. While the specifics and implications of semver are clear, sometimes it seems that there is additional weight and additional perceived risk when changing major versions, an alpha version preserves our flexibility while still moving forward. Ed Coleman -Original Message- From: Christopher [mailto:ctubb...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 12:28 AM To: accumulo-dev Subject: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha? Hi Accumulo devs, I'm thinking about initiating a vote next week for a 2.0.0-alpha release, so we can have an official ASF release (albeit without the usual stability expectations as a normal release) to be available for the upcoming Accumulo Summit. An alpha version would signal our progress towards 2.0.0 final, serve as a basis for testing, and give us something to share with a wider audience to solicit feedback on the API, configuration, and module changes. Of course, it would still have to meet ASF release requirements... like licensing and stuff, and it should essentially work (so people can actually run tests), but in an alpha release, we could tolerate flaws we wouldn't in a final release. Ideally, I would have preferred a 2.0.0 final at this point in the year, but I think it needs more testing. Does an alpha release next week seem reasonable to you? Christopher
