+1. Ran same tests as with 0.98 release.
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org> wrote: > I think which version of gpg used is not important, so long as the > signatures are valid and can be consumed universally. Likewise with the > checksum calculations. I agree that standardizing on this for the project > would be helpful for all parties, but until we enforce generating release > artifacts in jenkins, I think discrepancies between release managers is > acceptable. I do find it startling that there's a difference between what's > on the tag and what's in the tgz, but since it's not product changes, only > dev tools, it's not enough to sink the RC. > > Now for my +1 > > - verified signing key for both tgzs > - run with 1.0.1 and checkout of branch-1.0/HEAD in local mode > - create table, load example data with psql, list tables and content > - start query server and perform similar experiments there; everything > works as expected and log levels look good > - checked src tgzl with apache-rat:check, and verified no .class, .jar, > .orig, ~ files present > - build src tgz, UT all pass (with PHOENIX-1963 applied, thanks Gabriel. > Missing a close() in test is not bad enough to sink the RC.) > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:10 PM, rajeshb...@apache.org < > chrajeshbab...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> @Gabriel, >> bq. The format that the checksums are written in here makes it >> impossible to check them with an automated tool, which is a bit of an >> issue for me and perhaps a bigger issue for people who count on that >> working for all software downloads. Any reason for the change? >> >> Sorry for this. When I read >> https://www.apache.org/dev/openpgp.html#generate-key this link >> I thought it's fine to have install gpg2 or gpg and went to install gpg2. >> Didn't realize this problem. >> Next time make release with gpg. >> >> Thanks, >> Rajeshbabu. >> >> >> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Enis Söztutar <e...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > Here is my +1. >> > >> > Verified sigs, crcs. >> > Run with HBase-1.0.1 local mode. >> > Tried the examples. >> > checked directory layouts, jars >> > checked src tarball contents vs tag >> > >> > +1 to what Gabriel says. >> > Enis >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Gabriel Reid <gabriel.r...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > +1 to release. I ran the same checks and ran into the same issues as >> > > with the HBase-0.98 variant, which I'm reposting below for >> > > completeness. >> > > >> > > * Verified the checksums and signatures, they all match up, but I >> > > noticed that they were created differently (using gpg2) than previous >> > > releases. The format that the checksums are written in here makes it >> > > impossible to check them with an automated tool, which is a bit of an >> > > issue for me and perhaps a bigger issue for people who count on that >> > > working for all software downloads. Any reason for the change? >> > > * I successfully ran the full integration test suite, although it took >> > > a few tries due to failures on >> > > org.apache.phoenix.pherf.ResultTest#testMonitorResult. I've logged >> > > this in JIRA (PHOENIX-1963) >> > > * I successfully ran rat, although initially ran into some issues with >> > > artifacts that were left over from the previous build and not cleaned >> > > up by 'mvn clean', logged in PHOENIX-1964 >> > > * I attempted to verify that the contents of the tag >> > > (v4.4.0-HBase-0.98-rc1) are identical to the contents of the source >> > > distribution, and noticed that they aren't -- the make_rc.sh script is >> > > different between these two (it includes among other things the >> > > changed checksum calculation). This isn't enough to sink this build, >> > > but it's something we should try to avoid in the future. >> > > >> > > - Gabriel >> > > >> > > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:41 AM, rajeshb...@apache.org >> > > <chrajeshbab...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > Hi Everyone, >> > > > >> > > > This is a call for a vote on Apache Phoenix 4.4.0-HBase-1.0 RC1. This >> > is >> > > the >> > > > next minor release of Phoenix 4, compatible with the 1.0(branch of >> > > > Apache HBase(1.0.1+) . The release includes both a source-only >> release >> > > and a >> > > > convenience binary release. >> > > > >> > > > The 4.4.0-HBase-1.0 release has feature parity with our pending >> > > > 4.4.0-HBase-0.98 release. New features include: >> > > > - Support HBase HA Query(timeline-consistent region replica read)[1] >> > > > - Alter session query support(at present changing query consistency >> > > level. >> > > > Can be used for changing connection properties.) >> > > > >> > > > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found >> at: >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/phoenix/phoenix-4.4.0-HBase-1.0-rc1/src/ >> > > > >> > > > The binary artifacts can be found at: >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/phoenix/phoenix-4.4.0-HBase-1.0-rc1/bin/ >> > > > >> > > > Release artifacts are signed with the following key: >> > > > http://people.apache.org/~rajeshbabu/E3A65DBC.asc >> > > > >> > > > KEYS file available here: >> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/phoenix/KEYS >> > > > >> > > > The hash and tag to be voted upon: >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=phoenix.git;a=commit;h=09d1840876d7b55e32d753b6666541eb7df22b85 >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=phoenix.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/v4.4.0-HBase-1.0-rc1 >> > > > >> > > > Vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Please vote: >> > > > >> > > > [ ] +1 approve >> > > > [ ] +0 no opinion >> > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > The Apache Phoenix Team >> > > > >> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-1683 >> > > >> > >>
