[DISCUSS] Draft release timeline for 2.0.0

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

[DISCUSS] Draft release timeline for 2.0.0

Christopher Tubbs-2
Hi Accumulo Devs,

I've been thinking about the 2.0.0 release timeline. I was thinking
something like this milestone timeline:

Feature Complete : mid-late August
Dedicated Testing, Documentation, and release voting : all of September
Final release : October 1st

This schedule would make 2.0.0 available for the Accumulo Summit coming up
in October, with a few weeks to spare.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft release timeline for 2.0.0

Mike Miller-2
Sounds good to me.

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 4:35 PM Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Accumulo Devs,
>
> I've been thinking about the 2.0.0 release timeline. I was thinking
> something like this milestone timeline:
>
> Feature Complete : mid-late August
> Dedicated Testing, Documentation, and release voting : all of September
> Final release : October 1st
>
> This schedule would make 2.0.0 available for the Accumulo Summit coming up
> in October, with a few weeks to spare.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft release timeline for 2.0.0

Josh Elser-2
In reply to this post by Christopher Tubbs-2
What are the current 2.0.0 features? (Outstanding and completed)

On 6/11/18 4:35 PM, Christopher wrote:

> Hi Accumulo Devs,
>
> I've been thinking about the 2.0.0 release timeline. I was thinking
> something like this milestone timeline:
>
> Feature Complete : mid-late August
> Dedicated Testing, Documentation, and release voting : all of September
> Final release : October 1st
>
> This schedule would make 2.0.0 available for the Accumulo Summit coming up
> in October, with a few weeks to spare.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft release timeline for 2.0.0

Christopher Tubbs-2
I believe those are being maintained in the draft release notes at
https://accumulo.apache.org/release/accumulo-2.0.0/

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:02 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:

> What are the current 2.0.0 features? (Outstanding and completed)
>
> On 6/11/18 4:35 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > Hi Accumulo Devs,
> >
> > I've been thinking about the 2.0.0 release timeline. I was thinking
> > something like this milestone timeline:
> >
> > Feature Complete : mid-late August
> > Dedicated Testing, Documentation, and release voting : all of September
> > Final release : October 1st
> >
> > This schedule would make 2.0.0 available for the Accumulo Summit coming
> up
> > in October, with a few weeks to spare.
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft release timeline for 2.0.0

Josh Elser-2
Based on that, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4733 is
the only thing outstanding (and just one question at that).

Mid/late August seems like a long time until feature-complete for
essentially a no-op of work :)

On 6/11/18 5:07 PM, Christopher wrote:

> I believe those are being maintained in the draft release notes at
> https://accumulo.apache.org/release/accumulo-2.0.0/
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:02 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> What are the current 2.0.0 features? (Outstanding and completed)
>>
>> On 6/11/18 4:35 PM, Christopher wrote:
>>> Hi Accumulo Devs,
>>>
>>> I've been thinking about the 2.0.0 release timeline. I was thinking
>>> something like this milestone timeline:
>>>
>>> Feature Complete : mid-late August
>>> Dedicated Testing, Documentation, and release voting : all of September
>>> Final release : October 1st
>>>
>>> This schedule would make 2.0.0 available for the Accumulo Summit coming
>> up
>>> in October, with a few weeks to spare.
>>>
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft release timeline for 2.0.0

J. Mark Owens
I'd like to get ACCUMULO-4808 into 2.0. I think I should be able to make
the proposed deadline.

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Based on that, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4733 is the
> only thing outstanding (and just one question at that).
>
> Mid/late August seems like a long time until feature-complete for
> essentially a no-op of work :)
>
>
> On 6/11/18 5:07 PM, Christopher wrote:
>
>> I believe those are being maintained in the draft release notes at
>> https://accumulo.apache.org/release/accumulo-2.0.0/
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:02 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> What are the current 2.0.0 features? (Outstanding and completed)
>>>
>>> On 6/11/18 4:35 PM, Christopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Accumulo Devs,
>>>>
>>>> I've been thinking about the 2.0.0 release timeline. I was thinking
>>>> something like this milestone timeline:
>>>>
>>>> Feature Complete : mid-late August
>>>> Dedicated Testing, Documentation, and release voting : all of September
>>>> Final release : October 1st
>>>>
>>>> This schedule would make 2.0.0 available for the Accumulo Summit coming
>>>>
>>> up
>>>
>>>> in October, with a few weeks to spare.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft release timeline for 2.0.0

Christopher Tubbs-2
In reply to this post by Josh Elser-2
I do not expect that page to be a complete or final set of features right
now, but it's probably better than the issue tracker is (because of all the
noise of old issues). Part of the goal of this thread was to motivate
people to start finalizing that set over the next few weeks as they triage
open issues and think about what they can realistically finish in the
timeline we establish. The hope is that the page will become more and more
complete as head more strongly towards this release.

As for the timeline, I have no problem moving the time table up if we get a
bit further along and realize we're in a good place to release. I just
don't like the pressure of unrealistically short timelines, and I know that
personally, my summer is going to be very busy regardless. Initially, I was
hoping we could release around September 1st... but then I figured add a
month for dedicated testing and documentation might be nice... and we'd
still release before the summit.


On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:36 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Based on that, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4733 is
> the only thing outstanding (and just one question at that).
>
> Mid/late August seems like a long time until feature-complete for
> essentially a no-op of work :)
>
> On 6/11/18 5:07 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > I believe those are being maintained in the draft release notes at
> > https://accumulo.apache.org/release/accumulo-2.0.0/
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:02 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> What are the current 2.0.0 features? (Outstanding and completed)
> >>
> >> On 6/11/18 4:35 PM, Christopher wrote:
> >>> Hi Accumulo Devs,
> >>>
> >>> I've been thinking about the 2.0.0 release timeline. I was thinking
> >>> something like this milestone timeline:
> >>>
> >>> Feature Complete : mid-late August
> >>> Dedicated Testing, Documentation, and release voting : all of September
> >>> Final release : October 1st
> >>>
> >>> This schedule would make 2.0.0 available for the Accumulo Summit coming
> >> up
> >>> in October, with a few weeks to spare.
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft release timeline for 2.0.0

Josh Elser-2
I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of meeting deadlines when the
criteria for "success" is undefined.

If Jira is overburdened, move everything out and have people move things
back. We have multiple tools -- we should at least have one in use.
Otherwise, this just seems like there are decisions happening behind the
scenes.

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 7:52 PM Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I do not expect that page to be a complete or final set of features right
> now, but it's probably better than the issue tracker is (because of all the
> noise of old issues). Part of the goal of this thread was to motivate
> people to start finalizing that set over the next few weeks as they triage
> open issues and think about what they can realistically finish in the
> timeline we establish. The hope is that the page will become more and more
> complete as head more strongly towards this release.
>
> As for the timeline, I have no problem moving the time table up if we get a
> bit further along and realize we're in a good place to release. I just
> don't like the pressure of unrealistically short timelines, and I know that
> personally, my summer is going to be very busy regardless. Initially, I was
> hoping we could release around September 1st... but then I figured add a
> month for dedicated testing and documentation might be nice... and we'd
> still release before the summit.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:36 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Based on that, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4733 is
> > the only thing outstanding (and just one question at that).
> >
> > Mid/late August seems like a long time until feature-complete for
> > essentially a no-op of work :)
> >
> > On 6/11/18 5:07 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > > I believe those are being maintained in the draft release notes at
> > > https://accumulo.apache.org/release/accumulo-2.0.0/
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:02 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> What are the current 2.0.0 features? (Outstanding and completed)
> > >>
> > >> On 6/11/18 4:35 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > >>> Hi Accumulo Devs,
> > >>>
> > >>> I've been thinking about the 2.0.0 release timeline. I was thinking
> > >>> something like this milestone timeline:
> > >>>
> > >>> Feature Complete : mid-late August
> > >>> Dedicated Testing, Documentation, and release voting : all of
> September
> > >>> Final release : October 1st
> > >>>
> > >>> This schedule would make 2.0.0 available for the Accumulo Summit
> coming
> > >> up
> > >>> in October, with a few weeks to spare.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft release timeline for 2.0.0

Christopher Tubbs-2
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:46 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of meeting deadlines when the
> criteria for "success" is undefined.
>
>
Why? I proposed the timeline to solicit opinions on it. Use whatever
subjective criteria you want to inform your own. If you have criteria that
you think won't be satisfied within that timeline, then raise them for
discussion.

If Jira is overburdened, move everything out and have people move things
> back. We have multiple tools -- we should at least have one in use.
> Otherwise, this just seems like there are decisions happening behind the
> scenes.
>
>
You lost me. Every release, we triage (finish, reject, or bump) open
issues; nobody's done that yet for 2.0. That's all I was talking about with
regard to the issue tracker noise.


> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 7:52 PM Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I do not expect that page to be a complete or final set of features right
> > now, but it's probably better than the issue tracker is (because of all
> the
> > noise of old issues). Part of the goal of this thread was to motivate
> > people to start finalizing that set over the next few weeks as they
> triage
> > open issues and think about what they can realistically finish in the
> > timeline we establish. The hope is that the page will become more and
> more
> > complete as head more strongly towards this release.
> >
> > As for the timeline, I have no problem moving the time table up if we
> get a
> > bit further along and realize we're in a good place to release. I just
> > don't like the pressure of unrealistically short timelines, and I know
> that
> > personally, my summer is going to be very busy regardless. Initially, I
> was
> > hoping we could release around September 1st... but then I figured add a
> > month for dedicated testing and documentation might be nice... and we'd
> > still release before the summit.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:36 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Based on that, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4733 is
> > > the only thing outstanding (and just one question at that).
> > >
> > > Mid/late August seems like a long time until feature-complete for
> > > essentially a no-op of work :)
> > >
> > > On 6/11/18 5:07 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > > > I believe those are being maintained in the draft release notes at
> > > > https://accumulo.apache.org/release/accumulo-2.0.0/
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:02 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> What are the current 2.0.0 features? (Outstanding and completed)
> > > >>
> > > >> On 6/11/18 4:35 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > > >>> Hi Accumulo Devs,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I've been thinking about the 2.0.0 release timeline. I was thinking
> > > >>> something like this milestone timeline:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Feature Complete : mid-late August
> > > >>> Dedicated Testing, Documentation, and release voting : all of
> > September
> > > >>> Final release : October 1st
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This schedule would make 2.0.0 available for the Accumulo Summit
> > coming
> > > >> up
> > > >>> in October, with a few weeks to spare.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft release timeline for 2.0.0

Mike Miller
Those release notes don't include all the work being tracked on GitHub
issues and PRs.

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:20 AM Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:46 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of meeting deadlines when the
> > criteria for "success" is undefined.
> >
> >
> Why? I proposed the timeline to solicit opinions on it. Use whatever
> subjective criteria you want to inform your own. If you have criteria that
> you think won't be satisfied within that timeline, then raise them for
> discussion.
>
> If Jira is overburdened, move everything out and have people move things
> > back. We have multiple tools -- we should at least have one in use.
> > Otherwise, this just seems like there are decisions happening behind the
> > scenes.
> >
> >
> You lost me. Every release, we triage (finish, reject, or bump) open
> issues; nobody's done that yet for 2.0. That's all I was talking about with
> regard to the issue tracker noise.
>
>
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 7:52 PM Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > I do not expect that page to be a complete or final set of features
> right
> > > now, but it's probably better than the issue tracker is (because of all
> > the
> > > noise of old issues). Part of the goal of this thread was to motivate
> > > people to start finalizing that set over the next few weeks as they
> > triage
> > > open issues and think about what they can realistically finish in the
> > > timeline we establish. The hope is that the page will become more and
> > more
> > > complete as head more strongly towards this release.
> > >
> > > As for the timeline, I have no problem moving the time table up if we
> > get a
> > > bit further along and realize we're in a good place to release. I just
> > > don't like the pressure of unrealistically short timelines, and I know
> > that
> > > personally, my summer is going to be very busy regardless. Initially, I
> > was
> > > hoping we could release around September 1st... but then I figured add
> a
> > > month for dedicated testing and documentation might be nice... and we'd
> > > still release before the summit.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:36 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Based on that, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4733
> is
> > > > the only thing outstanding (and just one question at that).
> > > >
> > > > Mid/late August seems like a long time until feature-complete for
> > > > essentially a no-op of work :)
> > > >
> > > > On 6/11/18 5:07 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > > > > I believe those are being maintained in the draft release notes at
> > > > > https://accumulo.apache.org/release/accumulo-2.0.0/
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:02 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> What are the current 2.0.0 features? (Outstanding and completed)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 6/11/18 4:35 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > > > >>> Hi Accumulo Devs,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I've been thinking about the 2.0.0 release timeline. I was
> thinking
> > > > >>> something like this milestone timeline:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Feature Complete : mid-late August
> > > > >>> Dedicated Testing, Documentation, and release voting : all of
> > > September
> > > > >>> Final release : October 1st
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> This schedule would make 2.0.0 available for the Accumulo Summit
> > > coming
> > > > >> up
> > > > >>> in October, with a few weeks to spare.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft release timeline for 2.0.0

Keith Turner
In reply to this post by Josh Elser-2
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:46 PM, Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of meeting deadlines when the
> criteria for "success" is undefined.
>
> If Jira is overburdened, move everything out and have people move things
> back. We have multiple tools -- we should at least have one in use.
> Otherwise, this just seems like there are decisions happening behind the
> scenes.

To communicate what we would like to see in 2.0.0, I propose opening a
Github issue, tagging it as 2.0.0, and marking it as a blocker.  We
can always triage and discuss the open blockers it later in the
summer.

>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 7:52 PM Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I do not expect that page to be a complete or final set of features right
>> now, but it's probably better than the issue tracker is (because of all the
>> noise of old issues). Part of the goal of this thread was to motivate
>> people to start finalizing that set over the next few weeks as they triage
>> open issues and think about what they can realistically finish in the
>> timeline we establish. The hope is that the page will become more and more
>> complete as head more strongly towards this release.
>>
>> As for the timeline, I have no problem moving the time table up if we get a
>> bit further along and realize we're in a good place to release. I just
>> don't like the pressure of unrealistically short timelines, and I know that
>> personally, my summer is going to be very busy regardless. Initially, I was
>> hoping we could release around September 1st... but then I figured add a
>> month for dedicated testing and documentation might be nice... and we'd
>> still release before the summit.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:36 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Based on that, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4733 is
>> > the only thing outstanding (and just one question at that).
>> >
>> > Mid/late August seems like a long time until feature-complete for
>> > essentially a no-op of work :)
>> >
>> > On 6/11/18 5:07 PM, Christopher wrote:
>> > > I believe those are being maintained in the draft release notes at
>> > > https://accumulo.apache.org/release/accumulo-2.0.0/
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:02 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> What are the current 2.0.0 features? (Outstanding and completed)
>> > >>
>> > >> On 6/11/18 4:35 PM, Christopher wrote:
>> > >>> Hi Accumulo Devs,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I've been thinking about the 2.0.0 release timeline. I was thinking
>> > >>> something like this milestone timeline:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Feature Complete : mid-late August
>> > >>> Dedicated Testing, Documentation, and release voting : all of
>> September
>> > >>> Final release : October 1st
>> > >>>
>> > >>> This schedule would make 2.0.0 available for the Accumulo Summit
>> coming
>> > >> up
>> > >>> in October, with a few weeks to spare.
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> >
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft release timeline for 2.0.0

Keith Turner
In reply to this post by Christopher Tubbs-2
I like this proposed timeline.  There are already a lot of good
changes in the 2.0.0 branch.  There are a few other things I would
like to see in 2.0.0,  I will I open issues for those in GH.

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Accumulo Devs,
>
> I've been thinking about the 2.0.0 release timeline. I was thinking
> something like this milestone timeline:
>
> Feature Complete : mid-late August
> Dedicated Testing, Documentation, and release voting : all of September
> Final release : October 1st
>
> This schedule would make 2.0.0 available for the Accumulo Summit coming up
> in October, with a few weeks to spare.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft release timeline for 2.0.0

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


On 6/12/18 10:36 AM, Keith Turner wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:46 PM, Josh Elser<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of meeting deadlines when the
>> criteria for "success" is undefined.
>>
>> If Jira is overburdened, move everything out and have people move things
>> back. We have multiple tools -- we should at least have one in use.
>> Otherwise, this just seems like there are decisions happening behind the
>> scenes.
> To communicate what we would like to see in 2.0.0, I propose opening a
> Github issue, tagging it as 2.0.0, and marking it as a blocker.  We
> can always triage and discuss the open blockers it later in the
> summer.
>

That'd be great.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft release timeline for 2.0.0

Josh Elser-2
In reply to this post by Christopher Tubbs-2


On 6/12/18 1:20 AM, Christopher wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:46 PM Josh Elser<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of meeting deadlines when the
>> criteria for "success" is undefined.
>>
>>
> Why? I proposed the timeline to solicit opinions on it. Use whatever
> subjective criteria you want to inform your own. If you have criteria that
> you think won't be satisfied within that timeline, then raise them for
> discussion.

Again, I am stating that a timeline with no recognition of what work
needs to be done is silly. Yes, you can draw a line in the sand for when
you want work to be done, but that's ineffective in making an actionable
feature complete date.

If you want the date to be meaningful, you need to understand what work
actually _has_ to be done and structure the date around that. Does this
make sense?

> If Jira is overburdened, move everything out and have people move things
>> back. We have multiple tools -- we should at least have one in use.
>> Otherwise, this just seems like there are decisions happening behind the
>> scenes.
>>
>>
> You lost me. Every release, we triage (finish, reject, or bump) open
> issues; nobody's done that yet for 2.0. That's all I was talking about with
> regard to the issue tracker noise.

I thought you were saying that there were too many open issues on Jira
to glean any information on outstanding work from it. I was trying to
give a suggestion about how to move past that.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft release timeline for 2.0.0

Keith Turner
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On 6/12/18 1:20 AM, Christopher wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:46 PM Josh Elser<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>> I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of meeting deadlines when the
>>> criteria for "success" is undefined.
>>>
>>>
>> Why? I proposed the timeline to solicit opinions on it. Use whatever
>> subjective criteria you want to inform your own. If you have criteria that
>> you think won't be satisfied within that timeline, then raise them for
>> discussion.
>
>
> Again, I am stating that a timeline with no recognition of what work needs
> to be done is silly. Yes, you can draw a line in the sand for when you want
> work to be done, but that's ineffective in making an actionable feature
> complete date.

Setting a date is an approach that many projects follow (OpenJDK just
adopted this approach).  With that approach the project takes whatever
features are complete at the given time.  Other projects take the
approach of agreeing on a list of features and saying when those are
done, we release.  Accumulo has not formally adopted either approach,
periodically someone just proposes a release.   For 2.0.0 I am in
favor of setting a tentative date of Sep 1 for feature freeze.  We
already have a lot of good features committed.  I would like to see
some more added, but I would also like to see 2.0.0 released which is
why I am in favor of the date.

>
> If you want the date to be meaningful, you need to understand what work
> actually _has_ to be done and structure the date around that. Does this make
> sense?
>
>> If Jira is overburdened, move everything out and have people move things
>>>
>>> back. We have multiple tools -- we should at least have one in use.
>>> Otherwise, this just seems like there are decisions happening behind the
>>> scenes.
>>>
>>>
>> You lost me. Every release, we triage (finish, reject, or bump) open
>> issues; nobody's done that yet for 2.0. That's all I was talking about
>> with
>> regard to the issue tracker noise.
>
>
> I thought you were saying that there were too many open issues on Jira to
> glean any information on outstanding work from it. I was trying to give a
> suggestion about how to move past that.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft release timeline for 2.0.0

Sean Busbey
In reply to this post by Mike Miller
This makes me very worried.

What's the expectation for how the release notes will come to include work
being tracked via GitHub?

Do we expect the release manager will go through things and update it as a
part of make a release candidate?

Should we be more proactive in getting release note details from
contributors?

Should committers be filling these in as a part of accepting a PR?

None of these get called out in the places I'd expect to find them:

http://accumulo.apache.org/how-to-contribute/

http://accumulo.apache.org/contributor/making-release

http://accumulo.apache.org/contributors-guide/



On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Mike Miller <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Those release notes don't include all the work being tracked on GitHub
> issues and PRs.
>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:20 AM Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:46 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of meeting deadlines when the
> > > criteria for "success" is undefined.
> > >
> > >
> > Why? I proposed the timeline to solicit opinions on it. Use whatever
> > subjective criteria you want to inform your own. If you have criteria
> that
> > you think won't be satisfied within that timeline, then raise them for
> > discussion.
> >
> > If Jira is overburdened, move everything out and have people move things
> > > back. We have multiple tools -- we should at least have one in use.
> > > Otherwise, this just seems like there are decisions happening behind
> the
> > > scenes.
> > >
> > >
> > You lost me. Every release, we triage (finish, reject, or bump) open
> > issues; nobody's done that yet for 2.0. That's all I was talking about
> with
> > regard to the issue tracker noise.
> >
> >
> > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 7:52 PM Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I do not expect that page to be a complete or final set of features
> > right
> > > > now, but it's probably better than the issue tracker is (because of
> all
> > > the
> > > > noise of old issues). Part of the goal of this thread was to motivate
> > > > people to start finalizing that set over the next few weeks as they
> > > triage
> > > > open issues and think about what they can realistically finish in the
> > > > timeline we establish. The hope is that the page will become more and
> > > more
> > > > complete as head more strongly towards this release.
> > > >
> > > > As for the timeline, I have no problem moving the time table up if we
> > > get a
> > > > bit further along and realize we're in a good place to release. I
> just
> > > > don't like the pressure of unrealistically short timelines, and I
> know
> > > that
> > > > personally, my summer is going to be very busy regardless.
> Initially, I
> > > was
> > > > hoping we could release around September 1st... but then I figured
> add
> > a
> > > > month for dedicated testing and documentation might be nice... and
> we'd
> > > > still release before the summit.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:36 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Based on that, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4733
> > is
> > > > > the only thing outstanding (and just one question at that).
> > > > >
> > > > > Mid/late August seems like a long time until feature-complete for
> > > > > essentially a no-op of work :)
> > > > >
> > > > > On 6/11/18 5:07 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > > > > > I believe those are being maintained in the draft release notes
> at
> > > > > > https://accumulo.apache.org/release/accumulo-2.0.0/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:02 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> What are the current 2.0.0 features? (Outstanding and completed)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 6/11/18 4:35 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > > > > >>> Hi Accumulo Devs,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I've been thinking about the 2.0.0 release timeline. I was
> > thinking
> > > > > >>> something like this milestone timeline:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Feature Complete : mid-late August
> > > > > >>> Dedicated Testing, Documentation, and release voting : all of
> > > > September
> > > > > >>> Final release : October 1st
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> This schedule would make 2.0.0 available for the Accumulo
> Summit
> > > > coming
> > > > > >> up
> > > > > >>> in October, with a few weeks to spare.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>



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

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft release timeline for 2.0.0

Keith Turner
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Sean Busbey <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This makes me very worried.
>
> What's the expectation for how the release notes will come to include work
> being tracked via GitHub?

For creating the 2.0.0 release notes we will need to query Jira and
GitHub.  After 2.0.0 is release we can make Jira read only.  Jira only
needs to remain writable until all branches that were open when the
transition to GH issues started are released.

>
> Do we expect the release manager will go through things and update it as a
> part of make a release candidate?

I am assuming "it" is the release notes.  I do not expect the RM to do
this alone, I plan to help write the release notes.

>
> Should we be more proactive in getting release note details from
> contributors?

That would be a good thing to do.  Could point them to the docs you
mentioned, if we had them.

>
> Should committers be filling these in as a part of accepting a PR?

My wish is that the committer at least properly labels the issue as an
improvement for the correct versions so it can be found later via
query.  I forget to do this sometimes, luckily others catch my
mistakes.

>
> None of these get called out in the places I'd expect to find them:
>
> http://accumulo.apache.org/how-to-contribute/
>
> http://accumulo.apache.org/contributor/making-release
>
> http://accumulo.apache.org/contributors-guide/
>

I think it would be useful to provide pointers in the contributor
guide on how to update the release notes for new features.

>
>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Mike Miller <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Those release notes don't include all the work being tracked on GitHub
>> issues and PRs.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:20 AM Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:46 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of meeting deadlines when the
>> > > criteria for "success" is undefined.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > Why? I proposed the timeline to solicit opinions on it. Use whatever
>> > subjective criteria you want to inform your own. If you have criteria
>> that
>> > you think won't be satisfied within that timeline, then raise them for
>> > discussion.
>> >
>> > If Jira is overburdened, move everything out and have people move things
>> > > back. We have multiple tools -- we should at least have one in use.
>> > > Otherwise, this just seems like there are decisions happening behind
>> the
>> > > scenes.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > You lost me. Every release, we triage (finish, reject, or bump) open
>> > issues; nobody's done that yet for 2.0. That's all I was talking about
>> with
>> > regard to the issue tracker noise.
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 7:52 PM Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I do not expect that page to be a complete or final set of features
>> > right
>> > > > now, but it's probably better than the issue tracker is (because of
>> all
>> > > the
>> > > > noise of old issues). Part of the goal of this thread was to motivate
>> > > > people to start finalizing that set over the next few weeks as they
>> > > triage
>> > > > open issues and think about what they can realistically finish in the
>> > > > timeline we establish. The hope is that the page will become more and
>> > > more
>> > > > complete as head more strongly towards this release.
>> > > >
>> > > > As for the timeline, I have no problem moving the time table up if we
>> > > get a
>> > > > bit further along and realize we're in a good place to release. I
>> just
>> > > > don't like the pressure of unrealistically short timelines, and I
>> know
>> > > that
>> > > > personally, my summer is going to be very busy regardless.
>> Initially, I
>> > > was
>> > > > hoping we could release around September 1st... but then I figured
>> add
>> > a
>> > > > month for dedicated testing and documentation might be nice... and
>> we'd
>> > > > still release before the summit.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:36 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Based on that, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4733
>> > is
>> > > > > the only thing outstanding (and just one question at that).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Mid/late August seems like a long time until feature-complete for
>> > > > > essentially a no-op of work :)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 6/11/18 5:07 PM, Christopher wrote:
>> > > > > > I believe those are being maintained in the draft release notes
>> at
>> > > > > > https://accumulo.apache.org/release/accumulo-2.0.0/
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:02 PM Josh Elser <[hidden email]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> What are the current 2.0.0 features? (Outstanding and completed)
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> On 6/11/18 4:35 PM, Christopher wrote:
>> > > > > >>> Hi Accumulo Devs,
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> I've been thinking about the 2.0.0 release timeline. I was
>> > thinking
>> > > > > >>> something like this milestone timeline:
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> Feature Complete : mid-late August
>> > > > > >>> Dedicated Testing, Documentation, and release voting : all of
>> > > > September
>> > > > > >>> Final release : October 1st
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> This schedule would make 2.0.0 available for the Accumulo
>> Summit
>> > > > coming
>> > > > > >> up
>> > > > > >>> in October, with a few weeks to spare.
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> busbey
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Draft release timeline for 2.0.0

Mike Walch-2
In reply to this post by Christopher Tubbs-2
There is more clean up work (related to my 2.0 API changes) that I want to
do.  Therefore, this schedule works for me.

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Christopher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Accumulo Devs,
>
> I've been thinking about the 2.0.0 release timeline. I was thinking
> something like this milestone timeline:
>
> Feature Complete : mid-late August
> Dedicated Testing, Documentation, and release voting : all of September
> Final release : October 1st
>
> This schedule would make 2.0.0 available for the Accumulo Summit coming up
> in October, with a few weeks to spare.
>