Sorry to persist. But I still don’t have a satisfactory answer to this one:

How can you be sure that the SHA of the RC that four people voted on?

(In Calcite, every RC is still in the dist/dev tree. E.g. 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/calcite/apache-calcite-1.21.0-rc0/. But 
I can’t find a similar archive for Arrow.)

Julian



> On Feb 9, 2026, at 1:43 PM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I’ve added some comments to that issue, so let’s continue there.
> 
> If other Arrow components are anything like ADBC, we (the Arrow PMC) have 
> some release provenance issues to address. These include integrity of release 
> votes, downloads pages providing links to historic releases and their hashes, 
> and release announcements that include a permanent link to artifacts. 
> 
> (If I am overreacting, I apologize. My investigations are hampered by the 
> fact that https://archive.apache.org/dist/arrow/ is timing out currently.)
> 
>> On Feb 9, 2026, at 12:01 PM, Bryce Mecum <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> https://arrow.apache.org/adbc/current/driver/installation.html which
>> can be traversed to from https://arrow.apache.org. I created [1] to
>> address the information gaps on that page.
>> 
>> https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/issues/3946
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2026 at 11:32 AM Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> What is the downloads page for Arrow ADBC? The Arrow downloads page only 
>>> includes Arrow releases, so it looks as if ADBC isn’t complying with the 
>>> policy for downloads pages: 
>>> https://infra.apache.org/release-download-pages.html#download-page
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 9, 2026, at 11:25 AM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Re "checksums are linked in the vote thread”. Are any of those checksums 
>>>> still available? The linked by the vote, 
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/arrow/apache-arrow-adbc-21-rc0 
>>>> appears to be broken.
>>>> 
>>>> To put it another way. Can you prove that the artifact you voted on had 
>>>> hash 
>>>> 74d9dedd15bce71bfbc5bce00ad1aa91be84623010e2a01e6846343a7acc93e36fb263a08cc8437a9467bf63a2c7aca4b14d413325d5afb96b590408d918b27e.
>>>>  If not, we have a provenance problem.
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 9, 2026, at 11:02 AM, Bryce Mecum <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry for any confusion caused, Julian. I didn't mean to imply the
>>>>> GitHub URL was the definitive location for the asset and I only linked
>>>>> it because I know it's the same artifact as what's uploaded to ASF and
>>>>> it was near at hand. I otherwise would've linked to [1].
>>>>> 
>>>>> Re: the potential policy violations, I can put up a PR to add the
>>>>> latest closer.lua URL to [2] which may address your first point and,
>>>>> for the second point, the checksums are linked in the vote thread so
>>>>> everything looks fine there.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [1] 
>>>>> https://archive.apache.org/dist/arrow/apache-arrow-adbc-21/apache-arrow-adbc-21.tar.gz
>>>>> [2] https://arrow.apache.org/adbc/current/driver/installation.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2026 at 10:14 AM Julian Hyde <[email protected]> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Where is the definitive location for the ADBC 21 source tarball? It 
>>>>>> should be on ASF infrastructure, not GitHub.com <http://github.com/>.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We may have a couple of policy violations here. The release announcement 
>>>>>> for ADBC 21 [1] does not link to any permanent location for downloads. 
>>>>>> And the SHA512 for the tarball does not appear anywhere in the vote 
>>>>>> thread for the release [2].
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We should not be trying to construct the provenance of a release using 
>>>>>> circumstantial evidence such as "On *Dec 14, 2025 at 7:46 AM EST*, the 
>>>>>> SHA512 checksum for that file was …"
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Julian
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/dpxqpory5pmd119j85ks7cq9prword9p
>>>>>> [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/mx2bwkbx51hy8robpnqksw93hrqzhtp9
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Feb 9, 2026, at 9:17 AM, Bryce Mecum <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hey Rusty,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think the URL you shared is the source archive for the git tag and
>>>>>>> not the release artifact. If I remember correctly, GitHub has had
>>>>>>> issues with checksum stability with those URLs in the past and, while
>>>>>>> the situation has gotten better, we recommend only using the release
>>>>>>> artifacts anyway [1]. If [1] isn't hash stable, let us know.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> [1] 
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/releases/download/apache-arrow-adbc-21/apache-arrow-adbc-21.tar.gz
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2026 at 7:30 AM Rusty Conover <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi Arrow Friends,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Apologies in advance if this is the wrong mailing list or if I’m 
>>>>>>>> missing something obvious — but I’ve run into something odd with the 
>>>>>>>> `apache-arrow-adbc-21.tar.gz` release artifact.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I’ve been building ADBC via vcpkg as part of my `adbc_scanner` DuckDB 
>>>>>>>> extension, using the following source archive:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/archive/apache-arrow-adbc-21.tar.gz
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On *Dec 14, 2025 at 7:46 AM EST*, the SHA512 checksum for that file 
>>>>>>>> was:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> `74d9dedd15bce71bfbc5bce00ad1aa91be84623010e2a01e6846343a7acc93e36fb263a08cc8437a9467bf63a2c7aca4b14d413325d5afb96b590408d918b27e
>>>>>>>> `
>>>>>>>> I know this definitively because that hash is recorded in my vcpkg 
>>>>>>>> overlay file, and CI completed successfully at the time.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Since then, however, the SHA512 checksum for the same URL now resolves 
>>>>>>>> to:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> `2c15c67d12b6b5ceafdd284038bff71136bac24b9aff1791ed0657e0f0a56ca713e641f9d1032918179af6c387762491c022f43d32995f94a749a60c7b91f20b
>>>>>>>> `
>>>>>>>> This is currently causing reproducible CI failures on the `v1.4` 
>>>>>>>> branch of my extension, which you can see starting here:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/Query-farm/adbc_scanner/actions?page=5
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Did I miss an announcement, or was the release artifact rebuilt or 
>>>>>>>> replaced after the initial publication?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance for any clarification, and sorry again if this is my 
>>>>>>>> fault.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Rusty
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> https://query.farm
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
> 

Reply via email to