It might be some sort of name-retention policy in action on AWS part. Ah... well, a lesson for the future.
Shall we get the bucket 'asfbigtop' to make it clear in the future? Cos On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 03:07PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > Then unfortunately we should just move on, unless we want to try and get it > from the current owner (using a trademark claim?). That would be at least > time consuming. Want to use one of the buckets I managed to reserve? > > > > On Oct 22, 2015, at 2:58 PM, Sean Mackrory <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yeah I'm afraid the account is gone, and that bucket is not under any other > > account in our control. So if the bucket is not available, somebody else > > must have claimed it. > > > >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Evans Ye <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> The best case is that Sean gets back with a news that the bucket is still > >> managed under Cloudera so that we might be able to backup things out and > >> then delete the bucket. > >> The worst case is someone took bigtop bucket so that we can only put 1.0 > >> packages in buckets created by Andrew and then update the 1.0 release repo > >> files. > >> > >> 2015-10-21 13:39 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]>: > >> > >>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 09:00PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > >>>> Thanks Evans. > >>>> > >>>> Cos: We do have the option to make new point releases and convenience > >>> repos > >>>> from older code if someone asks, but I suspect there won't be such > >>> demand. > >>> > >>> True, we can. There's already a JIRA about the absence of 0.6 - that's > >> why > >>> I > >>> brought up this point. > >>> > >>> Cos > >>> > >>>>> On Oct 20, 2015, at 5:25 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Another part here is that _all_ our historical releases are gone ;( > >>>>> > >>>>> It might be not a huge issue as we clearly encourage our users to > >> stay > >>> on the > >>>>> later stuff, but still it's a blow to the project. One of those > >>> non-so-obvious > >>>>> things that are very clear when looked upon in the rear-view mirror. > >>>>> > >>>>> Cos > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 02:34AM, Evans Ye wrote: > >>>>>> Thanks Andrew! > >>>>>> For temporarily dev/test usage, I've built packages back on our CI > >>> server: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://ci.bigtop.apache.org:8080/view/Releases/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And added some wiki for users: > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BIGTOP/How+to+install+Bigtop+1.0.0+with+Bigtop+Provisioner > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think this is enough, if it won't take too long to get bigtop > >>> bucket back > >>>>>> online. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> OTOH, BIGTOP-2092 < > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-2092> > >>> reveals > >>>>>> that all the historical release artifacts are not available as well. > >>>>>> My thought is to just provide 1.0 release artifacts. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cos, > >>>>>> right now I haven't used up the resource provided by Tom for CI. If > >>> needed > >>>>>> I think we can re-negotiate with Tom for rearrangement to get some > >> S3 > >>>>>> resources. > >>>>>> Anyhow, if you need help, just ping me. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2015-10-21 0:22 GMT+08:00 Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> FWIW, I was able to create the following buckets under my account: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> bigtop-repo > >>>>>>> bigtop-repos > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If you want to go with one of these, even if only temporarily, let > >>> me know > >>>>>>> and I'll send the PMC access credentials of an IAM user with full > >>> perms > >>>>>>> over these buckets. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Sean Mackrory < > >> [email protected] > >>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sean, could you figure out how this can be done? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sure. Although if the bucket ceased to exist when the account was > >>>>>>>> terminated, the name should have been free again with a couple of > >>> hours. > >>>>>>> So > >>>>>>>> either the bucket has NOT ceased to exist, or someone other than > >>> Cloudera > >>>>>>>> now has the bucket name. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I'll find out which... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Konstantin Boudnik < > >>> [email protected]> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 03:30PM, Evans Ye wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Guys I've a bad news. > >>>>>>>>>> I'm guessing that our official released 1.0 repos on S3 are also > >>> tied > >>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>> Cloudera's credentials, which is why we no longer have S3 repos > >>>>>>>> available > >>>>>>>>>> for users to consume now(I've tried centos6 and debian8). > >>>>>>>>>> That's really bad in user experience. :( > >>>>>>>>>> Cos, > >>>>>>>>>> * Could you please confirm where we put 1.0 repos on? > >>>>>>>>>> * If my guess is right, do you still have copies of signed repos > >>> at > >>>>>>>> local > >>>>>>>>>> for restore? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I do have the copy of the repos, so it should be an easy exercise > >>> to > >>>>>>>>> restore > >>>>>>>>> them to the new location. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> * I don't have knowledge of how our current S3 resources are > >> being > >>>>>>>>> managed. > >>>>>>>>>> And we don't have S3 resources available from Tom's team, hence > >> I > >>>>>>> think > >>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>> need to plan for this now. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Evans > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:53AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Since the binary convenience artifacts are not an official > >> release > >>>>>>>>> artifact, > >>>>>>>>>> only the source tarball is, then any of us can feel free to use > >>> the > >>>>>>>>> official > >>>>>>>>>> 1.0 release tarball to generate a new set of packages, store > >> them > >>> at > >>>>>>>> new > >>>>>>>>>> locations, and update pointers to that location. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The new location *could* be Apache dist. Other projects host > >> their > >>>>>>>>>> convenience artifacts there. We need to consider the impact on > >>>>>>>>>> infrastructure costs. I don't think there would be any > >> significant > >>>>>>>>> impact. > >>>>>>>>>> We could mail infrastructure to find out if they have any > >> concerns > >>>>>>>> given > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> space requirement if you prefer this option. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We have discussed it with INFRA in the early days of the project. > >>> And > >>>>>>>>> precisely the cost impact was the reason we have kept it > >>> elsewhere. We > >>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>> talking about ~0.7GB/repo x 5 platforms (at least) x number of > >>> Apache > >>>>>>>>> mirrors > >>>>>>>>> - it's pretty huge, really. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Bintray is another option. I don't know anything about it. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I also looked at creating a S3 bucket for Bigtop using my > >>> account. I > >>>>>>>>> have a > >>>>>>>>>> feeling monthly transfer charges will not be a problem. However > >>> the > >>>>>>>>> 'bigtop' > >>>>>>>>>> bucket is taken. Perhaps we could talk to Tom about getting > >>> ownership > >>>>>>>>>> transferred if you prefer this option. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We need to ask Cloudera's infra team to transfer it to us. Sean, > >>> could > >>>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>> figure out how this can be done? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks! > >>>>>>>>> Cos > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 18, 2015, at 4:42 AM, Olaf Flebbe <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Cos, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Is it correct that we should not put our release artifacts on > >>>>>>> apache > >>>>>>>>> dist, > >>>>>>>>>>> since Apache is about code not binaries? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Can we use something like bintray.org ? Looks like the > >>>>>>> functionality > >>>>>>>>> we need: RPM and DEB repo, and does have an API. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Olaf > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Am 18.10.2015 um 09:30 schrieb Evans Ye <[email protected]>: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Guys I've a bad news. > >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm guessing that our official released 1.0 repos on S3 are > >> also > >>>>>>>> tied > >>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cloudera's credentials, which is why we no longer have S3 > >> repos > >>>>>>>>> available > >>>>>>>>>>>> for users to consume now(I've tried centos6 and debian8). > >>>>>>>>>>>> That's really bad in user experience. :( > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cos, > >>>>>>>>>>>> * Could you please confirm where we put 1.0 repos on? > >>>>>>>>>>>> * If my guess is right, do you still have copies of signed > >> repos > >>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>> local > >>>>>>>>>>>> for restore? > >>>>>>>>>>>> * I don't have knowledge of how our current S3 resources are > >>> being > >>>>>>>>> managed. > >>>>>>>>>>>> And we don't have S3 resources available from Tom's team, > >> hence > >>> I > >>>>>>>>> think we > >>>>>>>>>>>> need to plan for this now. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Evans > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - Andy > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > >>> Hein > >>>>>>> (via Tom White) > >>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
