+1 built and ran tests on macos.

- Dan

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Mike Percy <[email protected]> wrote:

> +1
>
> I built 1.6.0-RC1 on RHEL 7 in RELEASE mode.
>
> - Checksums and sigs match
> - README.txt and LICENSE.txt look good
> - RAT check passed
> - All tests passed except for one flaky test (delete_table-itest) and one
> environment-related test issue (on kudu-tool-test), the latter of which I
> filed as KUDU-2234
> - Tested the kudu-client Maven repository jar against one of the old
> kudu-examples example programs
> - Performed some manual failover testing on a 10-node cluster with flash
> disks and everything looked solid
>
> Mike
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 11:10 PM, Mike Percy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > The Apache Kudu team is happy to announce the first release candidate for
> > Apache Kudu 1.6.0.
> >
> > Apache Kudu 1.6.0 is a minor release that offers many improvements and
> > fixes since the prior release.
> >
> > The is a source-only release. The artifacts have been staged here:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/kudu/1.6.0-RC1/
> >
> > Java convenience binaries in the form of a Maven repository are staged
> > here:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachekudu-1017
> >
> > It is tagged in Git as 1.6.0-RC1 and the corresponding git hash is the
> > following:
> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=kudu.git;a=commit;h=
> > 7e28dfc728e54e82d6cbc11fdcd4b9e62f2dfd66
> >
> > The release notes can be found here:
> > https://github.com/apache/kudu/blob/1.6.0-RC1/docs/release_notes.adoc
> >
> > The KEYS file to verify the artifact signatures can be found here:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/kudu/KEYS
> >
> > I'd suggest going through the README and the release notes, building
> Kudu,
> > and running the unit tests. Testing out the Maven repo would also be
> > appreciated.
> >
> > The vote will run until Tuesday, December 5th at 11PM PDT. We'd normally
> > run a vote for 3 full days but since we're headed into the weekend now
> > let's do 4 days instead.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to