Thanks Cos, I am perfectly okay with removing the two components for Power
in release 1.1.0. Specially, since zeppelin built on x86 appears to
function adequately on Power. And in-regard to tez, we could use the
workaround offered by patch BIGTOP-2213

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> >
> > >
>

Reply via email to