Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo >> mail # dev >> Schedule for 1.6.0 release?


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Schedule for 1.6.0 release?
+1
On Sep 18, 2013 5:43 PM, "Mike Drob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> +1 with reservations.
>
> 1.5.0 initially planned for an end-of-year release, but that ended up
> slipping much later. I'd like us to learn from that experience and come
> down much more strictly on the feature freeze this time.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > We do need to get this settled.  What about end of year target for
> > release
> > > date and feature freeze date at end of Oct?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Mike Drob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I wanted to revive this conversation, since fall is fast approaching.
> > One
> > >> reasonable target for a release date might be to try and get something
> > done
> > >> before Hadoop World/Strata NY, which is the last week of October. That
> > is a
> > >> bit sooner than initially planned, but would be a great bit of PR if
> it
> > >> were possible. Regardless, we need to seriously think about a feature
> > >> freeze date and get that agreed upon.
> > >>
> > >> Mike
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Eric Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Absolutely this would be helpful!
> > >> >
> > >> > I have access to a 10-node cluster, and regularly run the continuous
> > >> ingest
> > >> > test, and the random walk tests for long periods (24-48 hours) prior
> > to
> > >> > release.  Running these sooner can shorten the release cycle quite a
> > bit.
> > >> >
> > >> > If anyone has access to a medium-sized cluster (say, 100-500 nodes)
> > that
> > >> > can be used for scale testing, even if only for a short period, or
> > shared
> > >> > with other users, that would be helpful, too.
> > >> >
> > >> > -Eric
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Donald Miner <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> > >wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > I've talked to a couple of people about this in person, but
> figured
> > I'd
> > >> > put
> > >> > > it out here.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I have access to a 16 node cluster in my lab that we typically use
> > for
> > >> > R&D
> > >> > > type projects. We have accumulo on it right now and is typically
> > doing
> > >> > > something hadoop related. If there is a need to do testing of
> > accumulo
> > >> > > release on bare metal with respectable equipment, let me know how
> we
> > >> > might
> > >> > > be able to contribute.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > -Don
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Dave Marion <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Historically, how long has it taken to complete testing of
> release
> > >> > > > candidates? Subtract that from 1 November and that should be the
> > >> target
> > >> > > > date. Based on 1.5.0, that means feature complete is tomorrow,
> > right?
> > >> > :-)
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > > > From: Sean Busbey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 5:17 PM
> > >> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> > > > Subject: Schedule for 1.6.0 release?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > One of the action items out of the 1.6.0 discussion[1] was that
> > we'd
> > >> > use
> > >> > > > the list to decide on a target release date, feature set, and
> > >> > incremental
> > >> > > > milestones for Accumulo 1.6.0.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I know the initial plan was to aim for November, and right now
> > Jira
> > >> > says
> > >> > > > as much[2].
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > That's only ~4 months away, so we should lay out some plans.
> When
> > do
> > >> we
> > >> > > > need to target feature complete to meet that goal? When does
> code
> > >> > freeze
> > >> > > > need to happen?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > [1]:
> > >> > > >
> > >