Maryann, I'm not at all surprised that CALCITE-604 caused some trouble. However, the release that Josh is proposing consists only of Avatica files, so does not contain the 604 change, and so I'd be surprised if it impacts this release vote.
In another thread (or JIRA case) let me know what problems you are seeing and I'll try to solve them with you. Julian On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Maryann Xue <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I had trouble dealing with the latest change in metadata provider: > https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=calcite.git;a=commitdiff;h=d14040c52f8b0bc351443cff1584e8b587378698. > After modifying the Phoenix metadata classes to adapt to the interface > change, I got several exceptions. Am still looking at it to figure out the > problem. > > > Thanks, > Maryann > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > On Mar 9, 2016, at 1:46 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > I thought I preserved the sass/jekyll lines. Can you point me at what I >> removed? The last ~50 lines of both /LICENSE and /avatica/LICENSE seem to >> be identical. CALCITE-1144 >> >> I was mistaken re the jekyll/sanss entries. I now see the only difference >> between calcite/LICENSE and calcite/avatica/LICENSE is that the former has >> a protobuf section. Actually I think Avatica should have a protobuf >> section, and (now Avatica is a separate release) Calcite should not. >> >> > >> >> * Release notes in history.md are not complete. We recently decided in >> >> Calcite that the release notes should state which JDK and Guava >> >> versions the software has been tested against, and I think Avatica >> >> should do the same. >> > >> > ACK'ed CALCITE-1140 >> >> Note that I fixed this in two commits to >> https://github.com/apache/calcite/commits/branch-avatica-1.7. Can you add >> the [CALCITE-1140] prefix when you squash/rebase. >> >> Julian >> >>
