[infinispan-dev] The need for a 5.1.1

[Manik Surtani]

Branch created.

https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/tree/5.1.x

Of the JIRAs I mentioned below, if they have been committed to master I'll cherry pick them onto 5.1.x as well.  If they haven't been completed, I'll change their target accordingly, please make sure you create pull reqs for both master and 5.1.x.

Thanks
Manik

On 27 Jan 2012, at 14:49, Manik Surtani wrote:

> 
> On 27 Jan 2012, at 14:09, Mircea Markus wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 26 Jan 2012, at 22:42, Manik Surtani wrote:
>>> I really didn't want to do this, but it looks like a 5.1.1 will be necessary.  The biggest (critical, IMO, for 5.1.1) issues I see are:
>>> 
>>> 1. https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1786 - I presume this has to do with a bug Mircea spotted that virtual nodes were not being enabled by the config parser.  Which meant that even in the case of tests enabling virtual nodes, we still saw uneven distribution and hence poor performance (well spotted, Mircea).  
>>> 2. Related to 1, I don't think there is a JIRA for this yet, to change the default number of virtual nodes from 1 to 100 or so.  After we profile and analyse the impact of enabling this by default.  I'm particularly concerned about (a) memory footprint and (b) effects on Hot Rod relaying topology information back to clients.  Maybe 10 is a more sane default as a result.
>> 
>> There is one now:  https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1801
>> 
>>> 3. https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1788 - config parser out of sync with XSD!
>>> 4. https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1798 - forceReturnValues parameter in the RemoteCacheManager.getCache() method is ignored!
>> 
>> I'm sure there will some others as community starts reporting! but that's good as we can provide a quick release for the main issues.
>> 
>>> In addition, we may as well have these "nice to have's" in as well:
>>> 
>>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1787
>>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1793
>>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1795
>> 
>> these ^^ are already in master so we can include them straight away.  
>>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1789
>> 
>> this looks like a low prio, as doesn't have an impact on the  functionality
> 
> Agreed, but it is such a trivial fix and it greatly affects usability (who wants to see such verbose and misleading log messages?)
> 
>> 
>>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1784
>> pull request sent, so IMO makes sense.
>>> 
>>> What do you think?  Anything else you feel that is crucial for a 5.1.1?  I'd like to do this sooner rather than later, so we can still focus on 5.2.0.  So please respond asap.
>> As everybody is in the performance min set, I think the following issues, in this order, would be a quick win:
>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-825
>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-317
>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1748
> 
> -1 to all 3.  I think these are all non-trivial and shouldn't be in a point release - even if it is a week's worth of work.
> 
> Cheers
> Manik
> --
> Manik Surtani
> manik at jboss.org
> twitter.com/maniksurtani
> 
> Lead, Infinispan
> http://www.infinispan.org
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

--
Manik Surtani
manik at jboss.org
twitter.com/maniksurtani

Lead, Infinispan
http://www.infinispan.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/infinispan-dev/attachments/20120127/63fe7f70/attachment.html