If this https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/ppc64le/job/Bigtop-trunk-packages-ppc64le/ is of any reference, then at least two components would fail to get build in the release as well. I believe the community should make a call if we are ok with providing ppc convenient binaries two components short? I am ok with it, because binaries aren't a part of the release per se, but what the others think?
In the meantime, you can create a job similar to Bigtop-trunk-packages-ppc64le, but building from branch-1.1, and (if this is ok with the rest of the guys here) excluding two components failing because of the damn nodejs stuff. Regards, Cos On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 07:48AM, MrAsanjar . wrote: > hi cos, > where is ppc64le? don't see in as part of the tags > https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/Releases/job/Bigtop-1.1.0/11/ > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 1:55 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Guys, > > > > I have moved the bits to the dist/release, published the repo, pushed new > > tag > > to the protected rel/ location, and updated the Reporter with the release > > date > > (also update the How to Release wiki to reflect current process). > > > > Roman, > > > > thank to Evans uncanny foresight the packages are all done and waiting to > > be > > signed. Please grab them here > > https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/Releases/job/Bigtop-1.1.0/11/ > > and proceed as usual. If you need credentials for our new s3 buckets ping > > me > > or Andrew so we can share them with you. > > > > Once the repos are provisioned I will push updated site and send the > > releases > > announcement. > > > > Cheers, > > Cos > > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 06:04PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > > I can definitely help with binary artifacts, but it'll have to be over > > the > > > [long] weekend. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Roman. > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 12:38AM, Evans Ye wrote: > > > >> It looks like BIGTOP-2318 is not a big deal. > > > >> I'd say go :) > > > > > > > > I'd say so too ;) I will wait a couple more days in case there late > > votes, > > > > then close the thread and publish the release. I might need help with > > > > signing/publishing the binary artifacts, as I am on 4G cell-link and > > > > transferring a bunch of repos around might not be fast. > > > > > > > > Rvs, you were volunteering IIRC? ;) > > > > > > > > Cos > > > > > > > >> 2016-02-11 0:19 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]>: > > > >> > > > >> > +1 > > > >> > > > > >> > the RC1 looks good besides of the extra file issue already fixed on > > master > > > >> > > > > >> > I am not sure how to proceed with this. Shall we consider the > > original > > > >> > [VOTE] > > > >> > thread valid and simply call the tally? Or there's a feeling that > > we need > > > >> > to > > > >> > restart to vote and make it more formal than it is right now? > > > >> > > > > >> > Cos > > > >> > > > > >> > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 11:56PM, Evans Ye wrote: > > > >> > > I think it's OK to just update the KEYS file. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Here's my evaluation result of 1.1.0 RC1: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > 1. sha1, md5, signature verified > > > >> > > 2. build bigtop/slaves 1.1.0 images > > > >> > > 3. use above 1.1.0 slave images to build 1.1.0 packages > > > >> > > 4. run Docker Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages > > > >> > > 5. run Vagrant Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages > > > >> > > 6. run hadoop and pig smoke tests > > > >> > > 7. run hadoop itest > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Surely I didn't cover all the features, but the core feature I > > touched > > > >> > all > > > >> > > works well. > > > >> > > Hence here's my +1 to the RC1. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > 2016-02-07 15:23 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]>: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Argh... the keys again. CB588E12 is one of my subs, but it is > > DSA key > > > >> > and > > > >> > > > we > > > >> > > > had a lot of troubles with the RPMs (because RPM only works with > > > >> > "secure" > > > >> > > > RSA > > > >> > > > keys). Eventually, for package signing I've used FA08B173, > > which is a > > > >> > part > > > >> > > > of > > > >> > > > the KEYS file. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Technically, speaking there's no rule dictating to sign release > > > >> > artifacts > > > >> > > > and > > > >> > > > binary package with the same key. So, if having two keys is ok, > > then I > > > >> > will > > > >> > > > need to add CB588E12 to the KEYS as well. Or alternatively, I > > (or > > > >> > someone > > > >> > > > else) would need to do RC2 with correct signature. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Cos > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 03:15PM, Evans Ye wrote: > > > >> > > > > Hi Olaf, did you get the key from keyserver? > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc > > > >> > > > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz > > > >> > > > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA > > key ID > > > >> > > > CB588E12 > > > >> > > > > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > $ gpg --keyserver pgpkeys.mit.edu --recv-key CB588E12 # > > Took a > > > >> > while to > > > >> > > > > finish > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc > > > >> > > > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz > > > >> > > > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA > > key ID > > > >> > > > CB588E12 > > > >> > > > > gpg: Good signature from "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) < > > > >> > [email protected]>" > > > >> > > > > gpg: aka "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) < > > [email protected] > > > >> > >" > > > >> > > > > gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted > > signature! > > > >> > > > > gpg: There is no indication that the signature > > belongs to > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > > owner. > > > >> > > > > Primary key fingerprint: 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F > > 6980 > > > >> > 1F27 > > > >> > > > E622 > > > >> > > > > Subkey fingerprint: 88C5 8332 D1A9 6A83 F9B3 2776 7A7C > > 8596 > > > >> > CB58 > > > >> > > > 8E12 > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > 2016-02-05 17:01 GMT+08:00 Olaf Flebbe <[email protected]>: > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > hi, > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the signature file is made with a key CB588E12 , not > > contained in > > > >> > KEYS. > > > >> > > > > > Or missed I something important? > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Olaf > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Am 31.01.2016 um 05:35 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik < > > > >> > [email protected]>: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > It fixes the following issues: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be > > closed > > > >> > on > > > >> > > > > > Wednesday, > > > >> > > > > > > February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and > > vote > > > >> > with > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of > > Apache Bigtop > > > >> > > > > > > [ ] +0, I don't care either way, > > > >> > > > > > > [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release > > of Apache > > > >> > > > > > Bigtop, because... > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Source and binary files: > > > >> > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Maven staging repo: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the > > > >> > release: > > > >> > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks! > > > >> > > > > > > Cos > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
