We have a new Mahout release coming out hopefully in the next few days; is there time to get a new rev into Bigtop?
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the push, dude - we really need to release it. It doesn't > even matter what board says on the topic - it is just a common sense > for a viable project like Bigtop. > > Considering how fast Groovy is moving forward we need to be upgrading > to 2.4.10 at least ;) > Same with Ignite - 1.9 is out now, I will update the ticket and will > try to work on it over the weekend. > > -- > Take care, > Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik > 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622 > > Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author, > and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author > might be affiliated with at the moment of writing. > > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi! > > > > as was pointed out by the ASF board lately we haven't > > had a release in quite some time. They are right -- release > > early and release often is the only way to go. So, I'd like > > to volunteer to be a co-{release manager} with Cos and > > push 1.2 out ASAP. > > > > Looking at > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-2282 > > makes me think that we're 90% done with formalizing > > the BOM. The only two things outstanding are: > > Bump Ignite to 1.8 > > Bump Groovy version to 2.4.7 > > > > With Groovy I can take care of it myself. But with Ignite > > I either need somebody to help, or given how long it is > > outstanding, may be we can just leave it be. Please chime > > in if you'd like to volunteer. > > > > Looking at: > > https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/Packages/job/Bigtop-trunk-packages/ > > makes me think that the biggest obstacle there is ARM64 > > which we should fix pretty soon. The rest looks reasonable. > > > > With all of that in mind, I'd like to shoot for the first RC made > > available over the next weekend. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Thanks, > > Roman. >
