Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo >> mail # dev >> 1.6.0 Feature Freeze


Copy link to this message
-
Re: 1.6.0 Feature Freeze
Here's links to the jql you gave above:

http://s.apache.org/accumulo-ff-1.6.0
http://s.apache.org/accumulo-ff-1.6.0-remaining

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 12:34 AM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's the query for everything 'feature freeze'-y -
> project = ACCUMULO AND fixVersion = "1.6.0" AND status not in (Resolved,
> "Patch Available") AND issuetype != bug AND component not in (Docs) ORDER
> BY priority DESC
>
> But going forward, this is the one I'll be referencing-
> project = ACCUMULO AND fixVersion = "1.6.0" AND status in (Open, "In
> Progress", Reopened, "Patch Available")
>
> That said, all the remaining tickets are either patch available, bugs,
> documentation, or subtasks of features which are in, either via commit or
> review board. So, running with the review board definition + defining
> feature freeze as a major feature freeze (which was really the point, to
> prevent a lot of big code changes close to/during testing), I think we hit
> our goal. There are a few questionable sub-tasks out there which really do
> need to be addressed in the coming week, but I think a week of feature
> 'clean up' is acceptable, especially relative to last release (sorry,
> again).
>
> I don't think requires any sort of vote as it's not so much a rules change
> as it is asking the developer community to hold off a little bit on
> challenging certain features until they've been polished a bit more.
>
> That said, a week from today I'm going to start using the defined and voted
> on release processes for challenging incomplete features. And my definition
> of complete is based solely on JIRA / review board, so keep things up to
> date please. Then this should give us plenty of time for the
> bughunting/polishing of the overall release.
>
> John
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Ditto to the filter links (I think Jira makes this harder than you
>> anticipate if memory serves).
>>
>> Everything outlined here looks good to me. +1, Mr. John "Release Manager"
>> Vines.
>>
>>
>> On 11/1/13, 7:02 PM, Christopher wrote:
>>
>>> Those filter links don't seem to work for me.
>>> BTW, +1 on proposal, with my suggestions, if that vote is still
>>> running and you didn't already count me.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:14 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Sean Busbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:45 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> All of your comments make sense to me. Unfortunately we're a bit stuck
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the latter category. Going forward we can make steps as a community to
>>>>>>
>>>>> help
>>>>>
>>>>>> prevent it, but that doesn't change this release. And beside issue of
>>>>>> pulling out an incrementally committed feature, pulling out features
>>>>>>
>>>>> lends
>>>>>
>>>>>> the potential for a release to be insubstantial.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  There are 149 non-duplicate issues resolved marked for 1.6.0 that
>>>>> aren't
>>>>> marked for a 1.5.x series[1].
>>>>>
>>>>> That a good deal, though I admittedly don't know how substantial they
>>>>> are,
>>>>> and I don't have a sense for how many would be *need* to be pulled out
>>>>> as
>>>>> part of a major feature revert.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  So for the sake of the 1.6.0 release, what do we think we should do
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> the sub-tasks for added/expected features? Particularly ones deemed
>>>>>> requisite for that feature to hit the mainline?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ultimately, if you're the release manager you get to decide. You can
>>>>> just
>>>>> take a very permissive view on how far along things posted to review
>>>>> board
>>>>> need to be at the start. Or a permissive view on what constitutes an
>>>>> update
>>>>> "critical" for the release.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we all want to avoid the ~5 months it took to get through RC on
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB