Seems we simply didn't ship documentation in the client tarball with 2.2.5.
Do we want to ship docs in the client tarball? It seems like we should. Do we want to ship all these variants of the docs in the client tarball? I'm not so sure. On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:27 PM Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:31 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> My only concerns is that, the client-bin is even larger than the bin, 308 >> MB vs 260 MB. Is this expected? The main difference is the docs directory, >> in bin it is 65 MB while in client-bin it is 681 MB. >> > > This was surprising for me as well. I opened HBASE-24629 to dig into it. > > 张铎(Duo Zhang) <[email protected]> 于2020年6月18日周四 上午9:55写道： >> >> > I'm still testing but let me post something about the compatibility >> report >> > first. >> > >> > There is an incompatible item about removing a method from the Admin >> > interface, which should not happen for a minor release. >> > >> > package org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client >> > Admin.snapshotAsync ( SnapshotDescription p1 ) [abstract] : void >> > >> > >> org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/Admin.snapshotAsync:(Lorg/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/SnapshotDescription;)V >> > >> > Checked the release note and found out that it was done in HBASE-22001, >> by >> > me... >> > I just changed the return value from void to Future<Void>, so the >> > compatibility report tells that the method which returns void has been >> > removed. >> > >> > I think this is fine. We do not guarantee drop in replacement for a >> minor >> > release, and it will not be a problem if users recompile their code. >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > Bharath Vissapragada <[email protected]> 于2020年6月18日周四 上午5:17写道： >> > >> >> Thanks. I'm switching my vote to +1. >> >> >> >> - Signatures match (src/bin) >> >> - Checksums match (src/bin) >> >> - Compiled src from scratch >> >> - Ran unit-tests from src (-PrunSmallTests, Java8). No failures >> >> - Started a local mini cluster from compiled-src and bin artifacts and >> ran >> >> some smoke tests - No issues >> >> - Skimmed through the release notes. >> >> >> >> Thanks Nick for putting together such a high quality release, >> especially >> >> all the work around docs/test flakes etc. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:46 AM Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > I have updated the KEYS file with revision 40069. >> >> > >> >> > I have also verified the content of the file on people.apache.org is >> >> up to >> >> > date, https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/ndimiduk.asc >> >> > >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > Nick >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 6:45 PM Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > Ah, could be. I did update the expiration date. Let me update the >> KEYS >> >> > > file and double-check id.a.o. >> >> > > >> >> > > Thanks for the reminder. >> >> > > >> >> > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 15:39 Bharath Vissapragada < >> >> [email protected]> >> >> > > wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > >> -1 (binding) >> >> > >> >> >> > >> Looks like your key from the KEYS file has expired? Per Apache >> FAQs >> >> > >> <https://infra.apache.org/release-signing#verifying-signature>, >> "A >> >> > >> signature is valid, if gpg verifies the .asc as a good signature, >> and >> >> > >> doesn't complain about expired or revoked keys." >> >> > >> >> >> > >> gpg --verify hbase-2.3.0-src.tar.gz.asc hbase-2.3.0-src.tar.gz >> >> > >> > gpg: Signature made Mon 15 Jun 2020 08:41:19 PM PDT >> >> > >> > gpg: using RSA key >> >> > >> 6EF6CEC74B89B9293B4D9CD0AD9039071C3489BD >> >> > >> > gpg: issuer "[email protected]" >> >> > >> > gpg: Good signature from "Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]>" >> >> > [expired] >> >> > >> > gpg: aka "Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]>" >> >> > [expired] >> >> > >> > gpg: Note: This key has expired! >> >> > >> > Primary key fingerprint: 3A74 917C 0C45 844F B816 BB4A CA36 >> 33F1 >> >> 8644 >> >> > >> EEB6 >> >> > >> > Subkey fingerprint: 6EF6 CEC7 4B89 B929 3B4D 9CD0 AD90 >> 3907 >> >> 1C34 >> >> > >> 89BD >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:36 AM Nick Dimiduk <[email protected] >> > >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > Please vote on this Apache hbase release candidate, >> >> > >> > hbase-2.3.0RC0 >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > The VOTE will remain open for at least 72 hours. >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache hbase 2.3.0 >> >> > >> > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ... >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > The tag to be voted on is 2.3.0RC0: >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > https://github.com/apache/hbase/tree/2.3.0RC0 >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > The release files, including signatures, digests, as well as >> >> > CHANGES.md >> >> > >> > and RELEASENOTES.md included in this RC can be found at: >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/hbase/2.3.0RC0/ >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > Maven artifacts are available in a staging repository at: >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-1393/ >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > Artifacts were signed with the [email protected] key which >> can >> >> be >> >> > >> found >> >> > >> > in: >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hbase/KEYS >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > To learn more about Apache hbase, please see >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > http://hbase.apache.org/ >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > Thanks, >> >> > >> > Your HBase Release Manager >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >
