Since I'm going to publish binaries tomorrow anyway -- I'll include ppc ones as well unless somebody complains.
Makes sense? Thanks, Roman. On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:46 AM, MrAsanjar . <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > >>
