It is and I haven't been really arguing about the validity of the point ;) Ok, as the -1 stands I will try to re-spin it once again tonight, but the timing might be a bit of an issue - I am dealing with some maintenance emergency at my house as we speak...
Cos On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 02:45AM, Evans Ye wrote: > Yes. I'm very much agree with you. > My way is just to hard code a fixed location of binaries in our code > repository. > I imaging by the time we reach about 90% complete of our new CI infra, we > should have a location to store the newest binaries and either use a fixed > latest link or use DNS to switch between the binaries. > That would be much more elegant than mine. :) > But in reality, we're limited by what we currently have, so I think we > should still upgrade those repos in our code. > Otherwise, users may get confused why they're getting an old packages > deployed when using the new 1.0 release. > I'm doing the -1 from the user point of view. Do you think this is > reasonable? > > > > 2015-08-07 2:24 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]>: > > > Evans, > > > > the location of the binaries' shouldn't be affecting the release IMO. > > Here's > > the reason why: when the release is done we don't know where the binaries > > will be hosted. Thus we have this chicken and egg issue here. Do you think > > we > > should think of how to fix it past 1.0 time? Perhaps using some sort of > > universal _latest_ link would do or similar. > > > > I can respin the release - no problem with it: it is an easy process now. > > But > > do you think you can reconsider your -1? I am fine either way. > > > > Thanks for being so thorough with the checks! > > Cos > > > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 02:02AM, Evans Ye wrote: > > > -1. > > > I'm sorry to block the 1.0 release because the default repositories in > > > bigtop-deploy are still in 0.8. > > > It's my mistake that I didn't aware of it during the long time before the > > > release. I apologise. > > > > > > I discovered this when doing RC tests on bigtop provisioners and puppet > > > recipes. > > > Actaully the functionality are all good, but we just need to point the > > repo > > > to 1.0 so that user can get 1.0 cluster deployed right out of the box. > > > If we do not update the repos, it's ok since no single function is > > broken. > > > We just have a wired release with 0.8 content mixed in... > > > To conclude, I think we better upgrade those default stuff in > > bigtop-deploy > > > so that we have same semantic across all the module in the 1.0 release. > > > I've fired BIGTOP-1958 < > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-1958> to > > > apply the fix. Will upload patch soon. > > > Sorry again, folks. > > > > > > 2015-08-07 1:05 GMT+08:00 RJ Nowling <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > +1 to release > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Sean Mackrory <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1. Checked hashes, some minor sanity testing. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Edward J. Yoon < > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > As I mentioned above, I don't want to block the release because of > > > > > > this feature. I don't care either way so please keep the process of > > > > > > releasing! We can put it into next release. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Sorry, is it for 1.0 or for pushing Hama to the next one? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 03:03PM, Edward J. Yoon wrote: > > > > > > >> Yup, +1 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Konstantin Boudnik < > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > Hello Edward. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > The vote is underway and the BOM for this release has been > > set and > > > > > > agreed > > > > > > >> > upon. 1.0 is a major step for this project and it'd be great > > to > > > > have > > > > > > it out of > > > > > > >> > the door without anymore delays. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Past 1.0 the release process should be easier, considering > > that > > > > the > > > > > > CI work is > > > > > > >> > getting finished and we have wrapped a lot of major stuff into > > > > 1.0. > > > > > > I'd rather > > > > > > >> > have Hama upgrade in the following release, which we can cut > > > > pretty > > > > > > soon. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Does it make sense? > > > > > > >> > Cos > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 01:14PM, Edward J. Yoon wrote: > > > > > > >> >> Hi community, > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> Please check whether BIGTOP-1126 can be added to 1.0 > > release. I > > > > > would > > > > > > >> >> say that the Hama 0.7 is stable enough and so should be > > added. Of > > > > > > >> >> course, this shouldn't be a blocker! > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> Thanks. > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Jay Vyas < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> >> > +1 > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> On Aug 4, 2015, at 8:13 PM, Konstantin Boudnik < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> This is the vote for release 1.0.0 of Apache Bigtop. > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> It fixes the following issues: > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12326837&styleName=Text&projectId=12311420 > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> This is the respin of RC2, addressing an inclusion of a > > build > > > > > > directory into > > > > > > >> >> >> the release artifact. The rest of the release is the same. > > > > > > Because of that > > > > > > >> >> >> let's run a shorter (2 days) vote. > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> The vote will be going for at least 48 hours and will be > > > > closed > > > > > > on Thursday > > > > > > >> >> >> August 5th, 2015 at 1800 PDT. Please download, test and > > vote > > > > > with > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> [ ] +1, accept RC3 as the official 1.0.0 release of Apache > > > > > Bigtop > > > > > > >> >> >> [ ] +0, I don't care either way, > > > > > > >> >> >> [ ] -1, do not accept RC3 as the official 1.0.0 release of > > > > > Apache > > > > > > Bigtop, because... > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> Source and binary files: > > > > > > >> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~cos/bigtop-1.0.0-RC3 > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> Maven staging repo: > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1003 > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.0.0 > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the > > > > > release: > > > > > > >> >> >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/bigtop/dist/KEYS > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> -- > > > > > > >> >> Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > >> Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
