On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 12:48 PM Zoltan Ivanfi <[email protected]> 
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> An excerpt from
> https://www.apache.org/dev/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." Another excerpt from
> https://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing#check-integrity that
> reinforces that signing each other's keys is optional: "If you are
> connected to the Apache web of trust then this also offers superior
> security."
>
> That being said I support signing each other's keys. Of course, you
> will still need one key somewhere along the signing chain that you
> trust. I see that a few PMC members have signed keys, how should we
> approach this task? The HOWTO suggests public conferences and key
> signing parties, but I hope there is a way to do that remotely. Would
> members who are already in the web of trust feel comfortable signing
> our keys based the on the following?
>
> - Our keys have been committed to the central KEYS file using our
> apache credentials.
> - We could personally confirm this in the next Parquet sync.
> - We could even read the key ID-s out loud if needed.
>

In person is best (if it is a person whose identity you are sure of),
for people I know personally what I've done to sign their key remotely
is have them write down the PGP fingerprint and show the paper to me
in a photograph of themselves or in a video call. I don't know whether
this is a good security practice but it seems better than doing things
over e-mail =)

- Wes

> Br,
>
> Zoltan
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 7:11 PM Zoltan Ivanfi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Wes,
> >
> > Gabor's key is in the KEYS file available at 
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/parquet/KEYS Others may correct me 
> > if I'm mistaken, but as far as I know, this is all that is required. I 
> > mentioned this in the verification steps as well ("4. Verify the signature 
> > by running `gpg --verify apache-parquet-1.11.0.tar.gz.asc`. It should say 
> > "Good signature", the warning about the key not being trusted can be 
> > ignored"). My signing key is also unsigned, because instead of signing each 
> > other's keys we depend on the fact that only privileged users can put their 
> > key into the central KEYS file.
> >
> > Br,
> >
> > Zoltan
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 6:46 PM Wes McKinney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> -1
> >>
> >> Gabor's PGP key is unsigned.
> >>
> >> $ gpg --verify apache-parquet-1.11.0.tar.gz.asc
> >> gpg: assuming signed data in 'apache-parquet-1.11.0.tar.gz'
> >> gpg: Signature made Tue 19 Mar 2019 08:55:48 AM CDT
> >> gpg:                using RSA key 6FB82970311551C7CEF131F5021057DBF048F543
> >> gpg: Good signature from "Gabor Szadovszky <[email protected]>" [unknown]
> >> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> >> gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the 
> >> owner.
> >> Primary key fingerprint: 6FB8 2970 3115 51C7 CEF1  31F5 0210 57DB F048 F543
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:10 AM Gabor Szadovszky <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Based on our release process (
> >> > http://parquet.apache.org/documentation/how-to-release/) and the related
> >> > scripts we use the final tag for an RC. So, the existence of this tag 
> >> > does
> >> > not mean 1.11.0 is released.
> >> > However, I agree this is misleading and not a good practice to remove
> >> > already committed tags and re-add them to another place (when a new RC
> >> > comes out). I think, we should update our release process to use RC tags
> >> > and put the final tag only after it is officially released. But it is the
> >> > story of the next release...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 8:00 PM 俊杰陈 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > From the github release page, I see the 1.11.0 already released. Is it
> >> > > still a rc version?
> >> > > https://github.com/apache/parquet-mr/releases/tag/apache-parquet-1.11.0
> >> > >
> >> > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 8:10 AM Ryan Blue <[email protected]>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Personally, I haven't had enough time to devote to Parquet lately and
> >> > > that
> >> > > > means I haven't validated that this release's new features are okay 
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > release. I'm hoping sometime in the next few weeks I'll be able to 
> >> > > > vote
> >> > > on
> >> > > > this.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 1:23 PM Andy Grove <[email protected]> 
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > I'm curious if there is any update on this vote? The thread seems
> >> > > eerily
> >> > > > > quiet.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Thanks.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On 4/3/19, 10:38 AM, "Andy Grove" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >     CAUTION – UNVERIFIED EXTERNAL EMAIL
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >     I have been able to run mvn verify and have also tested this RC
> >> > > > > against our internal systems, with no issue.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >     +1 (non-binding)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >     I have raised the issue about Hadoop-lzo, but that is present 
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > 1.10.1 release also.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >     Andy.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >     On 3/20/19, 7:50 AM, "Zoltan Ivanfi" 
> >> > > > > <[email protected]>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >         CAUTION – UNVERIFIED EXTERNAL EMAIL
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >         +1 (binding)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >         signature matches
> >> > > > >         git hash matches the git tag
> >> > > > >         source tarball matches the git tag
> >> > > > >         unit tests and integration tests pass
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >         On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:00 PM Gabor Szadovszky <
> >> > > > [email protected]>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >         > Dear Parquet Users and Developers,
> >> > > > >         >
> >> > > > >         > I propose the following RC to be released as the official
> >> > > > Apache
> >> > > > >         > Parquet 1.11.0 release:
> >> > > > >         >
> >> > > > >         > The commit id is 9756b0e2b35437a09716707a81e2ac0c187112ed
> >> > > > >         > * This corresponds to the tag: apache-parquet-1.11.0
> >> > > > >         > *
> >> > > > >         >
> >> > > > >         >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fparquet-mr%2Ftree%2F9756b0e2b35437a09716707a81e2ac0c187112ed&amp;data=02%7C01%7CAndy.Grove%40rms.com%7Cc45463142cfe401f12b708d6b852dac3%7Cd43fb8a804da4990b86cc4ba9ba4511f%7C0%7C0%7C636899063342858310&amp;sdata=v6kHzIIpJQp%2Fq7fuR%2ByHVwGV7vZ7lUKupyqKZwmQeFI%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >> > > > >         >
> >> > > > >         > The release tarball, signature, and checksums are here:
> >> > > > >         > *
> >> > > > >         >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdist.apache.org%2Frepos%2Fdist%2Fdev%2Fparquet%2Fapache-parquet-1.11.0-rc6%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7CAndy.Grove%40rms.com%7Cc45463142cfe401f12b708d6b852dac3%7Cd43fb8a804da4990b86cc4ba9ba4511f%7C0%7C0%7C636899063342858310&amp;sdata=RVlztCju4ZoZz5vnF8f5RxE7kPmZoKMj3Ipo4x0Aj4k%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >> > > > >         >
> >> > > > >         > You can find the KEYS file here:
> >> > > > >         > *
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdist.apache.org%2Frepos%2Fdist%2Fdev%2Fparquet%2FKEYS&amp;data=02%7C01%7CAndy.Grove%40rms.com%7Cc45463142cfe401f12b708d6b852dac3%7Cd43fb8a804da4990b86cc4ba9ba4511f%7C0%7C0%7C636899063342858310&amp;sdata=8xPAIJ4EkJPXXxZ2hTH%2BuJOtCOrCspYXkjsl%2B44Jb20%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >> > > > >         >
> >> > > > >         > Binary artifacts are staged in Nexus here:
> >> > > > >         > *
> >> > > > >         >
> >> > > > >         >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2Fcontent%2Fgroups%2Fstaging%2Forg%2Fapache%2Fparquet%2Fparquet%2F1.11.0%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7CAndy.Grove%40rms.com%7Cc45463142cfe401f12b708d6b852dac3%7Cd43fb8a804da4990b86cc4ba9ba4511f%7C0%7C0%7C636899063342868310&amp;sdata=%2FIW9qYFnwvuL7QgkrYxX%2BZWJ1fcaZz%2Bq1tRJWKfQERU%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >> > > > >         >
> >> > > > >         > This release includes the following new features:
> >> > > > >         > - PARQUET-1201 - Column indexes
> >> > > > >         > - PARQUET-1253 - Support for new logical type 
> >> > > > > representation
> >> > > > >         > - PARQUET-1381 - Add merge blocks command to 
> >> > > > > parquet-tools
> >> > > > >         > - PARQUET-1388 - Nanosecond precision time and timestamp 
> >> > > > > -
> >> > > > > parquet-mr
> >> > > > >         >
> >> > > > >         > The release also includes bug fixes, including:
> >> > > > >         > - PARQUET-1472: Dictionary filter fails on
> >> > > > FIXED_LEN_BYTE_ARRAY.
> >> > > > >         > - PARQUET-1510: Fix notEq for optional columns with null
> >> > > > values.
> >> > > > >         > - PARQUET-1533: TestSnappy() throws OOM exception with
> >> > > > > Parquet-1485 change
> >> > > > >         > - PARQUET-1531: Page row count limit causes empty pages 
> >> > > > > to be
> >> > > > > written from
> >> > > > >         > MessageColumnIO
> >> > > > >         > - PARQUET-1544: Possible over-shading of modules
> >> > > > >         >
> >> > > > >         > The following change has been reverted so it is not part 
> >> > > > > of
> >> > > any
> >> > > > > public
> >> > > > >         > release:
> >> > > > >         > - PARQUET-1381: Add merge blocks command to parquet-tools
> >> > > > >         >
> >> > > > >         > Please download, verify, and test. The vote will be open 
> >> > > > > for
> >> > > at
> >> > > > > least 72
> >> > > > >         > hours.
> >> > > > >         >
> >> > > > >         > Thanks,
> >> > > > >         > Gabor
> >> > > > >         >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Ryan Blue
> >> > > > Software Engineer
> >> > > > Netflix
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Thanks & Best Regards
> >> > >

Reply via email to