Thank you, Owen.

+1 for 1.5.7 and 1.6.1.

For 1.5.7, it also passed Apache Spark ORC tests, too.

For 1.6.1, it's the same with 1.6.0.
>From 1.6.0, there exists some Apache Spark UT failures.
So, I don't think it's a regression of 1.6.1 from 1.6.0.
It's expected ones at 1.6.x.

Bests,
Dongjoon.


On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 1:46 PM Owen O'Malley <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Thanks, Alan for checking the release.
>
> Dongjoon, thanks for the catch. I just removed the fixVersion from ORC-541.
>
> .. Owen
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 1:31 PM Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > From https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ORC/versions/12345702
> (1.5.7),
> > shall we remove the following `Issue To Do`?
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ORC-541
> >
> > Bests,
> > Dongjoon.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:48 PM Alan Gates <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, so it works, I just did it wrong, since I tried to run them
> directly.
> > > We could either make it so you can run them directly or somehow make it
> > > obvious to users that running them directly won't work.  Could we put a
> > > test in the Dockerfiles to see if they are being run from run-all or
> > > run-one and if not fail and print out a nice error message?
> > >
> > > I'm +1 on the release of both, as everything else looks good, and I
> don't
> > > think we have to fix this before we release.
> > >
> > > Alan.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:39 PM Owen O'Malley <[email protected]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > They pass for me on linux and I’ll kick off a Mac test this
> afternoon.
> > > >
> > > > You do need to set parameters for cmake (from docker/run-one.sh):
> > > >
> > > > case $OS in
> > > > centos6|ubuntu12)
> > > >    OPTS="-DSNAPPY_HOME=/usr/local -DPROTOBUF_HOME=/usr/local"
> > > >    ;;
> > > > centos7|debian8|ubuntu14)
> > > >    OPTS="-DSNAPPY_HOME=/usr/local"
> > > >    ;;
> > > > *)
> > > >    OPTS=""
> > > >    ;;
> > > > esac
> > > >
> > > > Since the run commands in the Docker images always build master, I
> > don’t
> > > > use them and either use the run-all.sh or run-one.sh scripts.
> > > >
> > > > I guess we should change the run commands to either have the
> necessary
> > > > options or change them to just run bash.
> > > >
> > > > .. Owen
> > > >
> > > > > On Oct 24, 2019, at 4:33 PM, Alan Gates <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I only looked at 1.5.7.
> > > > >
> > > > > The release itself looks fine.  However, I ran the docker builds
> and
> > > saw
> > > > > issues.  I ran them on both my mac and a linux box.  Most of the
> > image
> > > > > builds work (except for ubuntu 12, which fails on my mac but works
> on
> > > the
> > > > > linux box, due to some kind of image caching I expect), but a
> number
> > of
> > > > > them the runs fail.
> > > > >
> > > > >                    mac              linux
> > > > > centos6       run fails        run fails
> > > > > centos7       run fails        run fails
> > > > > centos8       passes         passes
> > > > > debian10     passes        passes
> > > > > debian8       run fails       run fails
> > > > > ubuntu12     build fails    run fails
> > > > > ubuntu14     run fails      run fails
> > > > > ubuntu16     passes       passes
> > > > > ubuntu18     passes       passes
> > > > >
> > > > > Alan.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:51 PM Owen O'Malley <
> > [email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi all,
> > > > >>   We've fixed a few issues on both branches.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Should we release the following artifacts as ORC 1.5.7 and 1.6.1?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> tar: http://home.apache.org/~omalley/orc-1.5.7/
> > > > >> tag: https://github.com/apache/orc/releases/tag/release-1.5.7rc2
> > > > >> jiras:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ORC/versions/12345702
> > > > >>
> > > > >> tar: http://home.apache.org/~omalley/orc-1.6.1/
> > > > >> tag: https://github.com/apache/orc/releases/tag/release-1.6.1rc2
> > > > >> jiras:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/ORC/versions/12346111
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks!
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to