I would like to propose extending the code freeze for a few days, to at
least Wednesday, but I think Friday would be best. My own reasons are that
I'm still getting together ACCUMULO-259, which I'm close to completing. But
I would really like to see the pluggable encryption hooks in place for 1.5
so insertable encryption is available with Accumulo 1.5. For the record,
Adam is working on 980 and 981 to get it in for the RFile, and I have a
security expert working on a patch for the walogs, so they are being
actively worked on.

And it also appears that I'm not the only person in this boat, as a quick
search shows 102 open fix tickets for 1.5, so perhaps another round of
prioritization is necessary before we close things up.

How does this sound?

- John

Next Friday is ok w/ me.  We should try to stick to that.   If its too
much to be done before then, then its probably something for 1.6.

Keith

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:41 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to propose extending the code freeze for a few days, to at
> least Wednesday, but I think Friday would be best. My own reasons are that
> I'm still getting together ACCUMULO-259, which I'm close to completing. But
> I would really like to see the pluggable encryption hooks in place for 1.5
> so insertable encryption is available with Accumulo 1.5. For the record,
> Adam is working on 980 and 981 to get it in for the RFile, and I have a
> security expert working on a patch for the walogs, so they are being
> actively worked on.
>
> And it also appears that I'm not the only person in this boat, as a quick
> search shows 102 open fix tickets for 1.5, so perhaps another round of
> prioritization is necessary before we close things up.
>
> How does this sound?
>
> - John

Ditto, Keith.

On 01/21/2013 01:58 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
> Next Friday is ok w/ me.  We should try to stick to that.   If its too
> much to be done before then, then its probably something for 1.6.
>
> Keith
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:41 PM, John Vines<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote:
>> I would like to propose extending the code freeze for a few days, to at
>> least Wednesday, but I think Friday would be best. My own reasons are that
>> I'm still getting together ACCUMULO-259, which I'm close to completing. But
>> I would really like to see the pluggable encryption hooks in place for 1.5
>> so insertable encryption is available with Accumulo 1.5. For the record,
>> Adam is working on 980 and 981 to get it in for the RFile, and I have a
>> security expert working on a patch for the walogs, so they are being
>> actively worked on.
>>
>> And it also appears that I'm not the only person in this boat, as a quick
>> search shows 102 open fix tickets for 1.5, so perhaps another round of
>> prioritization is necessary before we close things up.
>>
>> How does this sound?
>>
>> - John

I suppose I do want to add: it would be good to ask these sort of
question *before* said freeze was happening, John. It isn't any skin off
my back, but could be frustrating to others if they made extra effort to
finish a fix by the original freeze date.

On 01/21/2013 03:01 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
> Ditto, Keith.
>
> On 01/21/2013 01:58 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
>> Next Friday is ok w/ me.  We should try to stick to that.   If its too
>> much to be done before then, then its probably something for 1.6.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:41 PM, John Vines<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote:
>>> I would like to propose extending the code freeze for a few days, to at
>>> least Wednesday, but I think Friday would be best. My own reasons
>>> are that
>>> I'm still getting together ACCUMULO-259, which I'm close to
>>> completing. But
>>> I would really like to see the pluggable encryption hooks in place
>>> for 1.5
>>> so insertable encryption is available with Accumulo 1.5. For the
>>> record,
>>> Adam is working on 980 and 981 to get it in for the RFile, and I have a
>>> security expert working on a patch for the walogs, so they are being
>>> actively worked on.
>>>
>>> And it also appears that I'm not the only person in this boat, as a
>>> quick
>>> search shows 102 open fix tickets for 1.5, so perhaps another round of
>>> prioritization is necessary before we close things up.
>>>
>>> How does this sound?
>>>
>>> - John

Also a big +1 for Friday.

By the way, as much as I would like to we can't blame this one on John.
He's largely asking on my behalf, since I keep asking him and other folks
to sneak in more security features.

Thanks,
Adam
On Jan 21, 2013 3:37 PM, "Josh Elser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I suppose I do want to add: it would be good to ask these sort of question
> *before* said freeze was happening, John. It isn't any skin off my back,
> but could be frustrating to others if they made extra effort to finish a
> fix by the original freeze date.
>
> On 01/21/2013 03:01 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
>
>> Ditto, Keith.
>>
>> On 01/21/2013 01:58 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
>>
>>> Next Friday is ok w/ me.  We should try to stick to that.   If its too
>>> much to be done before then, then its probably something for 1.6.
>>>
>>> Keith
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:41 PM, John Vines<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would like to propose extending the code freeze for a few days, to at
>>>> least Wednesday, but I think Friday would be best. My own reasons are
>>>> that
>>>> I'm still getting together ACCUMULO-259, which I'm close to completing.
>>>> But
>>>> I would really like to see the pluggable encryption hooks in place for
>>>> 1.5
>>>> so insertable encryption is available with Accumulo 1.5. For the record,
>>>> Adam is working on 980 and 981 to get it in for the RFile, and I have a
>>>> security expert working on a patch for the walogs, so they are being
>>>> actively worked on.
>>>>
>>>> And it also appears that I'm not the only person in this boat, as a
>>>> quick
>>>> search shows 102 open fix tickets for 1.5, so perhaps another round of
>>>> prioritization is necessary before we close things up.
>>>>
>>>> How does this sound?
>>>>
>>>> - John
>>>>
>>>

Also, one question about wording. Some people have used the term "code
freeze". Because I want to make sure I'm on the same page, when we read
"code freeze", can I assume we mean "code freeze for new features"? I have
been operating on the assumption that while we had intended on halting new
feature development for 1.5.0, we were not going to halt commits for things
like:

1. bug fix code changes (especially important bugs found during pre-release
testing),
2. documentation/javadoc fixes/updates that don't affect code behavior,
3. quality-control cleanup (like removing trivial warnings about unused
imports and the like),
4. adding license headers,
5. build improvements to automate the release as part of the release
activities

Since it just occurred to me that I might be wrong, I thought I'd ask. Am I
correct in this understanding? That a feature freeze does not constitute a
freeze in these other (what I consider quality control) commits?
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Adam Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Also a big +1 for Friday.
>
> By the way, as much as I would like to we can't blame this one on John.
> He's largely asking on my behalf, since I keep asking him and other folks
> to sneak in more security features.
>
> Thanks,
> Adam
> On Jan 21, 2013 3:37 PM, "Josh Elser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I suppose I do want to add: it would be good to ask these sort of
> question
> > *before* said freeze was happening, John. It isn't any skin off my back,
> > but could be frustrating to others if they made extra effort to finish a
> > fix by the original freeze date.
> >
> > On 01/21/2013 03:01 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
> >
> >> Ditto, Keith.
> >>
> >> On 01/21/2013 01:58 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
> >>
> >>> Next Friday is ok w/ me.  We should try to stick to that.   If its too
> >>> much to be done before then, then its probably something for 1.6.
> >>>
> >>> Keith
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:41 PM, John Vines<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I would like to propose extending the code freeze for a few days, to
> at
> >>>> least Wednesday, but I think Friday would be best. My own reasons are
> >>>> that
> >>>> I'm still getting together ACCUMULO-259, which I'm close to
> completing.
> >>>> But
> >>>> I would really like to see the pluggable encryption hooks in place for
> >>>> 1.5
> >>>> so insertable encryption is available with Accumulo 1.5. For the
> record,
> >>>> Adam is working on 980 and 981 to get it in for the RFile, and I have
> a
> >>>> security expert working on a patch for the walogs, so they are being
> >>>> actively worked on.
> >>>>
> >>>> And it also appears that I'm not the only person in this boat, as a
> >>>> quick
> >>>> search shows 102 open fix tickets for 1.5, so perhaps another round of
> >>>> prioritization is necessary before we close things up.
> >>>>
> >>>> How does this sound?
> >>>>
> >>>> - John
> >>>>
> >>>
>

This thread should read feature freeze, not code freeze. The previous
threads have all been about feature freeze scheduling, and my understanding
matches Chris's description.

Good catch, Chris!

Adam
On Jan 21, 2013 10:32 PM, "Christopher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Also, one question about wording. Some people have used the term "code
> freeze". Because I want to make sure I'm on the same page, when we read
> "code freeze", can I assume we mean "code freeze for new features"? I have
> been operating on the assumption that while we had intended on halting new
> feature development for 1.5.0, we were not going to halt commits for things
> like:
>
> 1. bug fix code changes (especially important bugs found during pre-release
> testing),
> 2. documentation/javadoc fixes/updates that don't affect code behavior,
> 3. quality-control cleanup (like removing trivial warnings about unused
> imports and the like),
> 4. adding license headers,
> 5. build improvements to automate the release as part of the release
> activities
>
> Since it just occurred to me that I might be wrong, I thought I'd ask. Am I
> correct in this understanding? That a feature freeze does not constitute a
> freeze in these other (what I consider quality control) commits?
>
>
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Adam Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Also a big +1 for Friday.
> >
> > By the way, as much as I would like to we can't blame this one on John.
> > He's largely asking on my behalf, since I keep asking him and other folks
> > to sneak in more security features.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Adam
> > On Jan 21, 2013 3:37 PM, "Josh Elser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I suppose I do want to add: it would be good to ask these sort of
> > question
> > > *before* said freeze was happening, John. It isn't any skin off my
> back,
> > > but could be frustrating to others if they made extra effort to finish
> a
> > > fix by the original freeze date.
> > >
> > > On 01/21/2013 03:01 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ditto, Keith.
> > >>
> > >> On 01/21/2013 01:58 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Next Friday is ok w/ me.  We should try to stick to that.   If its
> too
> > >>> much to be done before then, then its probably something for 1.6.
> > >>>
> > >>> Keith
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:41 PM, John Vines<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> I would like to propose extending the code freeze for a few days, to
> > at
> > >>>> least Wednesday, but I think Friday would be best. My own reasons
> are
> > >>>> that
> > >>>> I'm still getting together ACCUMULO-259, which I'm close to
> > completing.
> > >>>> But
> > >>>> I would really like to see the pluggable encryption hooks in place
> for
> > >>>> 1.5
> > >>>> so insertable encryption is available with Accumulo 1.5. For the
> > record,
> > >>>> Adam is working on 980 and 981 to get it in for the RFile, and I
> have
> > a
> > >>>> security expert working on a patch for the walogs, so they are being
> > >>>> actively worked on.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> And it also appears that I'm not the only person in this boat, as a
> > >>>> quick
> > >>>> search shows 102 open fix tickets for 1.5, so perhaps another round
> of
> > >>>> prioritization is necessary before we close things up.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> How does this sound?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - John
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> >
>

+1 for Friday. I was pretty sick last week and didn't get done a few things
I'd like to have.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Ditto, Keith.
>
>
> On 01/21/2013 01:58 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
>
>> Next Friday is ok w/ me.  We should try to stick to that.   If its too
>> much to be done before then, then its probably something for 1.6.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:41 PM, John Vines<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to propose extending the code freeze for a few days, to at
>>> least Wednesday, but I think Friday would be best. My own reasons are
>>> that
>>> I'm still getting together ACCUMULO-259, which I'm close to completing.
>>> But
>>> I would really like to see the pluggable encryption hooks in place for
>>> 1.5
>>> so insertable encryption is available with Accumulo 1.5. For the record,
>>> Adam is working on 980 and 981 to get it in for the RFile, and I have a
>>> security expert working on a patch for the walogs, so they are being
>>> actively worked on.
>>>
>>> And it also appears that I'm not the only person in this boat, as a quick
>>> search shows 102 open fix tickets for 1.5, so perhaps another round of
>>> prioritization is necessary before we close things up.
>>>
>>> How does this sound?
>>>
>>> - John
>>>
>>