[DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
27 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?

Christopher Tubbs-2
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?

Mike Miller-2
Are there any benefits of having an extra release of alpha versus just
building a release candidate with extended time for testing?

On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 12:27 AM Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?

Christopher Tubbs-2
I think the benefits of an alpha release can be, and have been,
expressed elsewhere in the internet better than I could do it. But, in
short, an alpha is to solicit feedback from a wider audience, outside
the devs.

In ASF, release candidates are part of the process for making any
release, including an alpha release. So, we'd be voting on RC1 of
2.0.0-alpha. A release candidate can't substitute for a release of any
kind. They serve different purposes. A passing vote would mean that we
can more explicitly share it outside the ASF committers to get the
feedback that an alpha asks for. For example, we can publish the alpha
release to Maven Central and the ASF mirrors, as well as link on our
downloads page.

On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:11 AM Mike Miller <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Are there any benefits of having an extra release of alpha versus just
> building a release candidate with extended time for testing?
>
> On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 12:27 AM Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?

Ed Coleman
In reply to this post by Christopher Tubbs-2
+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:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 12:28 AM
To: accumulo-dev <[hidden email]>
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?

Sean Busbey-7
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 <[hidden email]> 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:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 12:28 AM
> To: accumulo-dev <[hidden email]>
> 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
>


--
busbey
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?

Sean Busbey-7
And can we keep the master branch the one used for 2.0.0-* until 2.0.0
is ready for candidates for a GA release?
On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 12:36 PM Sean Busbey <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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:[hidden email]]
> > Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 12:28 AM
> > To: accumulo-dev <[hidden email]>
> > 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
> >
>
>
> --
> busbey



--
busbey
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?

Mike Miller-2
Ok cool yeah sounds good.

+1 for Alpha

On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 1:37 PM Sean Busbey <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> And can we keep the master branch the one used for 2.0.0-* until 2.0.0
> is ready for candidates for a GA release?
> On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 12:36 PM Sean Busbey <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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:[hidden email]]
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 12:28 AM
> > > To: accumulo-dev <[hidden email]>
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > busbey
>
>
>
> --
> busbey
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?

Josh Elser-2
In reply to this post by Sean Busbey-7
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 <[hidden email]> 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:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 12:28 AM
>> To: accumulo-dev <[hidden email]>
>> 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
>>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?

Christopher Tubbs-2
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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:[hidden email]]
> >> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 12:28 AM
> >> To: accumulo-dev <[hidden email]>
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> >
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?

Josh Elser-2
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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:[hidden email]]
> > >> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 12:28 AM
> > >> To: accumulo-dev <[hidden email]>
> > >> 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
> > >>
> > >
> > >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?

Mike Miller-2
I think once we collect all the changes in 2.0 (there are a lot) we will be
able to create some bullet points, picking out changes most interesting to
users. The new bulk import process Kieth, Mark and I worked on should be
one.  There are many new features that come along with it that weren't
possible.  There was all the work Mike did for usability that he is
presenting at the summit and wrote a blog post about 2 years ago:
https://accumulo.apache.org/blog/2016/11/16/simpler-scripts-and-config.html
Rfile Summaries was a big change but happened a while ago.  Recently, the
new Crypto service and new AccumuloClient builder are some other features
that come to mind.


On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:05 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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:[hidden email]]
> > > >> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 12:28 AM
> > > >> To: accumulo-dev <[hidden email]>
> > > >> 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
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?

Josh Elser-2
Thanks, Mike.

Didn't RFile summaries show up in 1.9 too? (maybe I'm inventing that)

On 10/9/18 11:39 AM, Mike Miller wrote:

> I think once we collect all the changes in 2.0 (there are a lot) we will be
> able to create some bullet points, picking out changes most interesting to
> users. The new bulk import process Kieth, Mark and I worked on should be
> one.  There are many new features that come along with it that weren't
> possible.  There was all the work Mike did for usability that he is
> presenting at the summit and wrote a blog post about 2 years ago:
> https://accumulo.apache.org/blog/2016/11/16/simpler-scripts-and-config.html
> Rfile Summaries was a big change but happened a while ago.  Recently, the
> new Crypto service and new AccumuloClient builder are some other features
> that come to mind.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:05 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> 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:[hidden email]]
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 12:28 AM
>>>>>> To: accumulo-dev <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?

Keith Turner
In reply to this post by Josh Elser-2
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:05 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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.

We do need to finish these release notes.  Working towards an Alpha
release will hopefully motivate finishing them.   I created the
following issue, if anyone thinks something should be in the release
notes please add a comment.

https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website/issues/115

>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018, 19:33 Christopher <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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:[hidden email]]
> > > >> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 12:28 AM
> > > >> To: accumulo-dev <[hidden email]>
> > > >> 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
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> >
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?

Mike Miller-2
In reply to this post by Josh Elser-2
> Didn't RFile summaries show up in 1.9 too? (maybe I'm inventing that)

I think you are thinking of Sampling, that was released in 1.8.0, showing
up in 1.9.  I still get them confused.  They both are similar and start
with S.

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 12:03 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks, Mike.
>
> Didn't RFile summaries show up in 1.9 too? (maybe I'm inventing that)
>
> On 10/9/18 11:39 AM, Mike Miller wrote:
> > I think once we collect all the changes in 2.0 (there are a lot) we will
> be
> > able to create some bullet points, picking out changes most interesting
> to
> > users. The new bulk import process Kieth, Mark and I worked on should be
> > one.  There are many new features that come along with it that weren't
> > possible.  There was all the work Mike did for usability that he is
> > presenting at the summit and wrote a blog post about 2 years ago:
> >
> https://accumulo.apache.org/blog/2016/11/16/simpler-scripts-and-config.html
> > Rfile Summaries was a big change but happened a while ago.  Recently, the
> > new Crypto service and new AccumuloClient builder are some other features
> > that come to mind.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:05 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >> 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:[hidden email]]
> >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 12:28 AM
> >>>>>> To: accumulo-dev <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?

Keith Turner
In reply to this post by Christopher Tubbs-2
On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 12:27 AM Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 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?


I am in favor of an Alpha release.  Also, Alpha releases imply feature
freeze in some projects.  I am in favor of feature freeze.  Is anyone
opposed to feature freeze?

Below is what feature freeze means to me.

We agree to avoid adding new features for 2.0 AND work on 2.0 will
focus on bug fixes and polishing features added before the Alpha.
This polishing work could result in API changes.  If anyone really
wants to add a new feature, they should discuss it on the mailing
list.

>
> Christopher
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?

Josh Elser-2
In reply to this post by Mike Miller-2
Ah, yes. I think you're right. Thanks again :)

On 10/9/18 12:32 PM, Mike Miller wrote:

>> Didn't RFile summaries show up in 1.9 too? (maybe I'm inventing that)
>
> I think you are thinking of Sampling, that was released in 1.8.0, showing
> up in 1.9.  I still get them confused.  They both are similar and start
> with S.
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 12:03 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Mike.
>>
>> Didn't RFile summaries show up in 1.9 too? (maybe I'm inventing that)
>>
>> On 10/9/18 11:39 AM, Mike Miller wrote:
>>> I think once we collect all the changes in 2.0 (there are a lot) we will
>> be
>>> able to create some bullet points, picking out changes most interesting
>> to
>>> users. The new bulk import process Kieth, Mark and I worked on should be
>>> one.  There are many new features that come along with it that weren't
>>> possible.  There was all the work Mike did for usability that he is
>>> presenting at the summit and wrote a blog post about 2 years ago:
>>>
>> https://accumulo.apache.org/blog/2016/11/16/simpler-scripts-and-config.html
>>> Rfile Summaries was a big change but happened a while ago.  Recently, the
>>> new Crypto service and new AccumuloClient builder are some other features
>>> that come to mind.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:05 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>> 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:[hidden email]]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 12:28 AM
>>>>>>>> To: accumulo-dev <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?

Josh Elser-2
In reply to this post by Keith Turner


On 10/9/18 12:44 PM, Keith Turner wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 12:27 AM Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
>
> I am in favor of an Alpha release.  Also, Alpha releases imply feature
> freeze in some projects.  I am in favor of feature freeze.  Is anyone
> opposed to feature freeze?
>
> Below is what feature freeze means to me.
>
> We agree to avoid adding new features for 2.0 AND work on 2.0 will
> focus on bug fixes and polishing features added before the Alpha.
> This polishing work could result in API changes.  If anyone really
> wants to add a new feature, they should discuss it on the mailing
> list.

No concerns with an alpha also implying a feature-freeze. That does mean
that it should be even more straightforward to have a complete list of
the features landing in 2.0.0 ;) (which remains my only concern)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?

Keith Turner
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 12:53 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> On 10/9/18 12:44 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 12:27 AM Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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?
> >
> >
> > I am in favor of an Alpha release.  Also, Alpha releases imply feature
> > freeze in some projects.  I am in favor of feature freeze.  Is anyone
> > opposed to feature freeze?
> >
> > Below is what feature freeze means to me.
> >
> > We agree to avoid adding new features for 2.0 AND work on 2.0 will
> > focus on bug fixes and polishing features added before the Alpha.
> > This polishing work could result in API changes.  If anyone really
> > wants to add a new feature, they should discuss it on the mailing
> > list.
>
> No concerns with an alpha also implying a feature-freeze. That does mean
> that it should be even more straightforward to have a complete list of
> the features landing in 2.0.0 ;) (which remains my only concern)

If no one raises any objections to feature freeze in this discuss
thread, we could add something to the alpha release vote about feature
freeze.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?

Keith Turner
In reply to this post by Josh Elser-2
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 12:53 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> On 10/9/18 12:44 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 12:27 AM Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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?
> >
> >
> > I am in favor of an Alpha release.  Also, Alpha releases imply feature
> > freeze in some projects.  I am in favor of feature freeze.  Is anyone
> > opposed to feature freeze?
> >
> > Below is what feature freeze means to me.
> >
> > We agree to avoid adding new features for 2.0 AND work on 2.0 will
> > focus on bug fixes and polishing features added before the Alpha.
> > This polishing work could result in API changes.  If anyone really
> > wants to add a new feature, they should discuss it on the mailing
> > list.
>
> No concerns with an alpha also implying a feature-freeze. That does mean
> that it should be even more straightforward to have a complete list of
> the features landing in 2.0.0 ;) (which remains my only concern)

Are you concerned about not completing the release notes before an
alpha vote?  Or is your concern something else?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0.0-alpha?

Keith Turner
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:52 PM Keith Turner <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 12:53 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/9/18 12:44 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 12:27 AM Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> 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?
> > >
> > >
> > > I am in favor of an Alpha release.  Also, Alpha releases imply feature
> > > freeze in some projects.  I am in favor of feature freeze.  Is anyone
> > > opposed to feature freeze?
> > >
> > > Below is what feature freeze means to me.
> > >
> > > We agree to avoid adding new features for 2.0 AND work on 2.0 will
> > > focus on bug fixes and polishing features added before the Alpha.
> > > This polishing work could result in API changes.  If anyone really
> > > wants to add a new feature, they should discuss it on the mailing
> > > list.
> >
> > No concerns with an alpha also implying a feature-freeze. That does mean
> > that it should be even more straightforward to have a complete list of
> > the features landing in 2.0.0 ;) (which remains my only concern)
>
> Are you concerned about not completing the release notes before an
> alpha vote?  Or is your concern something else?

Personally, I would like to see the release notes completed before
2.0.0-alpha is announced.  I can't think of compelling reasons to
complete it earlier than that.  However, it seems critical to complete
them before announcing.
12