Hello everyone. RC0 has been canceled.
Since issues mentioned above are already fixed now, soon I will create RC1 and re-create VOTE thread. Thanks for trying out RC, -Vinay On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:41 AM Ayush Saxena <ayush...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Vinay > Thanx for driving the release. > Verified checksums and tried building from source. > Everything seems to be working fine. > But I feel the concerns regarding licences are valid. > IMO we should fix them and include HADOOP-16895 too in the release > > -Ayush > > > On 29-Feb-2020, at 1:45 AM, Vinayakumar B <vinayakum...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16895 jira created for > > handling LICENCE and NOTICEs > > PR also has been raised for a proposal. Please validate > > https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/6 > > > > -Vinay > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:48 PM Vinayakumar B <vinayakum...@apache.org > > > >> wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Elek for detailed verification. > >> > >> Please find inline replies. > >> > >> -Vinay > >> > >> > >>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Elek, Marton <e...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a > >>> hard work... > >>> > >>> > >>> 1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source > >>> > >>> 2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are > >>> fine > >>> > >>> 3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if > >>> it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the > >>> tar file. > >>> > >>> Since dev-support/create-release script and assembly file is copied > from > >> hadoop-repo, I can find this issue exits in hadoop source release > packages > >> as well. ex: I checked 3.1.2 and 2.10 src packages. > >> I will raise a Jira and fix this for both hadoop and thirdparty. > >> > >> 4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the > >>> Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also > >>> the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary). > >>> > >>> Again, NOTICE.txt was copied from Hadoop and kept as is. I will create > a > >> jira to decide about NOTICE and LICENSEs > >> > >> 5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain > >>> unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO > >>> > >>> We can decide in the Jira whether NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary to > be > >> used or not. > >> > >> 6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven > >>> artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing > >>> from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar > META-INF/LICENSE.txt" > >>> > >> > >> I observed that there is one more file "META-INF/DEPENDENCIES" generated > >> by shade plugin, which have reference to shaded artifacts and poniting > to > >> link of the original artifact LICENSE. I think this should be sufficient > >> about protobuf's original license. > >> IMO, "META-INF/LICENSE.txt" should point to current project's LICENSE, > >> which in-turn can have contents/pointers of dependents' licenses. > Siimilar > >> approach followed in hadoop-shaded-client jars. > >> > >> hadoop's artifacts also will be uploaded to maven repo during release, > >> which doesnot carry all LICENSE files in artifacts. It just says "See > >> licenses/ for text of these licenses" which doesnot exist in artifact. > May > >> be we need to fix this too. > >> > >> 7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512 > >>> files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would > help > >>> to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum. > >>> > >>> > >> Again, this is from create-release script. will update the script. > >> > >> Thanks again to work on this, > >>> Marton > >>> > >>> ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of > >>> these are blocking and I might be wrong. > >>> > >>> > >> IMO, none of these should be blocking and can be handled before next > >> release. Still if someone feels this should be fixed and RC should be > cut > >> again, I am open to it. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote: > >>>> Hi folks, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks to everyone's help on this release. > >>>> > >>>> I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty > >>> 1.0.0. > >>>> > >>>> RC Release artifacts are available at : > >>>> > >>> > http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/ > >>>> > >>>> Maven artifacts are available in staging repo: > >>>> > >>> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/ > >>>> > >>>> The RC tag in git is here: > >>>> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0 > >>>> > >>>> And my public key is at: > >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS > >>>> > >>>> *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm > >>> IST.* > >>>> > >>>> For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with > >>>> "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl= > >>>> > >>> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/ > >>>> -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0" > >>>> > >>>> My +1 to start. > >>>> > >>>> -Vinay > >>>> > >>> > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org > >