+1 Checked checksums/sig. Ran release-audit/test (passed). Eyeballed licences, they seem ok. Put it through the CI for our application (passed).
Good job Raul! -Ivan On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > I just noticed that the netty jar includes it's own license/notice w/in the > jar, so regardless we're good there. > > +1 - xsum/sigs verify correctly, license/notice seem right to me, RAT ran > clean. > > Patrick > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We didn't have for all and I believe the one for log4j was already there >> so we didn't touch it. As I understand it, the license file for log4j >> doesn't have to be under /lib because it is covered by the same license >> that zookeeper is and it has a license file in the jar. I don't think it >> matters if it is there, but to make it uniform, we could remove it for >> future releases. It shouldn't block this release, though. >> >> -Flavio >> >> >> > On 17 Nov 2015, at 22:05, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > -1 - the license file is missing for netty in the lib directory. >> > >> > Patrick >> > >> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:06 AM, Edward Ribeiro < >> [email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> +1 (non binding) >> >> >> >> Compiled from sources, ran ant test on ubuntu 15.04, reviewed docs. Set >> up >> >> a small ensemble (3 nodes) and ran some zkcli commands and four letter >> >> words. >> >> >> >> Thanks Raul! Very nice work. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Edward >> >> Em 15/11/2015 22:36, "Michi Mutsuzaki" <[email protected]> escreveu: >> >> >> >>> +1 (binding) >> >>> >> >>> Thanks Raul! >> >>> >> >>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> Yup, Michi is right! I signed with zookeeper-3.4.7.tar.gz.asc with the >> >>>> wrong key. I have no updated that files. Thanks Michi! >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -rgs >> >>>> >> >>>> On 15 November 2015 at 15:59, Michi Mutsuzaki <[email protected]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> But that's not the key that's listed here, right? >> >>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/zookeeper/KEYS >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>>>> It works for me: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> $ gpg2 --verify zookeeper-3.4.7.tar.gz.asc >> >>>>>> gpg: Signature made Wed Nov 11 06:47:13 2015 GMT using RSA key ID >> >>>>> 9DED6870 >> >>>>>> gpg: Good signature from "Raul Gutierrez Segales < >> >> [email protected] >> >>>> " >> >>>>>> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! >> >>>>>> gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to >> >> the >> >>>>> owner. >> >>>>>> Primary key fingerprint: D9FE 7869 EF41 C33C 707B 2FF7 4F0D 80FB >> >> 9DED >> >>>>> 6870 >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On 14 Nov 2015, at 22:20, Michi Mutsuzaki <[email protected]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> It looks like all the other files are signed with the right key. >> >> I'll >> >>>>>>> +1 this once zookeeper-3.4.7.tar.gz.asc gets updated. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> - verified the signature and md5/sha1 checksums for >> >>> zookeeper-3.4.7.jar >> >>>>>>> - verified the signatures and md5/sha1 checksums for all the files >> >>>>>>> under dist-maven/ >> >>>>>>> - reviewed docs/releasenotes.html >> >>>>>>> - ran ant test on ubuntu 14.04 >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Michi Mutsuzaki < >> >>> [email protected]> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> I'm getting this error verifying the signature: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> % gpg --verify zookeeper-3.4.7.tar.gz.asc >> >>>>>>>> gpg: Signature made Tue 10 Nov 2015 10:47:13 PM PST using RSA key >> >> ID >> >>>>> 9DED6870 >> >>>>>>>> gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Isn't the key ID supposed to be 92BC2F2B? >> >>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/zookeeper/KEYS >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan >> >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> +1(non-binding). I've built and tested with ant jar, ran few >> >> zkcli >> >>>>>>>>> commands, four letter words, tested against Hadoop-2.7.1 small >> >>>>> cluster env. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Flavio Junqueira < >> >> [email protected]> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> +1 (binding) >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> I have checked LICENSE, NOTICE, hashes, and signature. I have >> >> run >> >>>>> tests >> >>>>>>>>>> and some simple smoke tests locally. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> -Flavio >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On 11 Nov 2015, at 07:17, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés < >> >>>>> [email protected]> >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> This is a bugfix release candidate for 3.4.7. It fixes 79 >> >> issues, >> >>>>>>>>>> including >> >>>>>>>>>>> issues that affect followers after elections, being unable to >> >>>>> delete a >> >>>>>>>>>> node >> >>>>>>>>>>> when it has no children, crashes with random input from the >> >>> network >> >>>>> on >> >>>>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>>>> QuorumCnxManager, deadlocks during bad network conditions and >> >>>>> others. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> The full release notes is available at: >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310801&version=12325149 >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> *** Please download, test and vote by November 25th 2015, 23:59 >> >>>>> UTC+0. >> >>>>>>>>>> *** >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Source files: >> >>>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~rgs/zookeeper-3-4-7-rc0/ >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Maven staging repo: >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/staging/org/apache/zookeeper/zookeeper/3.4.7/ >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> The tag to be voted upon: >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/zookeeper/tags/release-3.4.7-rc0 >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> ZooKeeper's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the >> >>>>> release: >> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/zookeeper/KEYS >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Should we release this candidate? >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Note that the approval is by lazy majority according to the >> >>> bylaws >> >>>>> and >> >>>>>>>>>> only >> >>>>>>>>>>> PMC votes are binding. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>
