Thanks to everyone who has tested the release candidate and given their comments and votes.
The tally is as follows. 4 +1s: Prasanth Jayachandran Gunther Hagleitner Sushanth Sowmyan Jason Dere No 0s or -1s. Therefore I am delighted to announce that the proposal to release Apache Hive 2.1.0 has passed! We'll now roll the release out to the mirrors. In addition, I have created HIVE-14059 to fix the issue with the missing headers for the 2 files (thanks for catching that one Sushanth). On 6/17/16, 3:54 PM, "Jason Dere" <jd...@hortonworks.com> wrote: >Checked signatures, ran build and a few tests. >+1 >________________________________________ >From: Sushanth Sowmyan <khorg...@gmail.com> >Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 3:30 PM >To: dev@hive.apache.org >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3 > >Actually, to be more explicit, per Thejas' case of the top level >license taking precedence, this RC has my +1. > >On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Sushanth Sowmyan <khorg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I will happily rescind my -1 and even convert it to a +1 if the top >> level license does hold. I thought that the RAT check was a necessary >> blocker. >> >> (Although, if the top level license does cover across the board, we >> may want to open a new discussion on whether having a license >> requirement for every source file is necessary in the first place, and >> tweak the definition of the rat check so it does not fail it in this >> case.) >> >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Thejas Nair <thejas.n...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I don't think the missing headers for 2 files mandates a respin of >>> this RC . It is not really a case of 'incompatible' license or code >>> that shouldn't be shipped. >>> We have a top level license file that covers the entire project, >>> including these files. >>> IMO, We should fix it if there is a new RC for some other reason. But >>> this alone doesn't seem to make new RC necessary. >>> >>> Sushanth, Can you please reconsider your -1 ? >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Sushanth Sowmyan <khorg...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> -1, terribly sorry I didn't check for this earlier, but the RAT check >>>> fails for this. >>>> >>>> If you run mvn apache-rat:check , then you see the following issue: >>>> >>>> Unapproved licenses: >>>> >>>> >>>> /Users/sush/t/rel/apache-hive-2.1.0-src/common/src/java/org/apache/hive/common/util/DateParser.java >>>> >>>> /Users/sush/t/rel/apache-hive-2.1.0-src/common/src/test/org/apache/hive/common/util/TestDateParser.java >>>> >>>> Basically, these two files are missing the apache license header. We >>>> need to add them in. >>>> >>>> All other things are good, though. It has the oracle fix I asked for >>>> in RC2, md5s and signatures check out, compilation works on source >>>> package, and I'm able to run the hive binary from the binary package. >>>> I also tried a number of tests, and I've run a rat test on the release >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez >>>> <jcamachorodrig...@hortonworks.com> wrote: >>>>> Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3 is available here: >>>>> >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jcamacho/hive-2.1.0-rc3 >>>>> >>>>> Maven artifacts are available here: >>>>> >>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehive-1057/ >>>>> >>>>> Source tag for RC3 is at: >>>>> https://github.com/apache/hive/releases/tag/release-2.1.0-rc3 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Voting will conclude in 72 hours. >>>>> >>>>> Hive PMC Members: Please test and vote. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >
