It appears there was a decision made on HBASE-20149 to exclude the dev and testdev api docs from the main tarball on HBASE-20149. This was not replicated for the client assembly.
https://github.com/apache/hbase/pull/1964 On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:07 PM Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > >> >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >>
