I don't really care but what's wrong with the ones I already claimed?
> On Oct 22, 2015, at 3:45 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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) >>>>
