Sounds good - thanks Holden!
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Holden Karau wrote:
> That sounds like a pretty good temporary work around if folks agree I'll
> cancel release vote for 2.1.2 and work on getting an RC2 out later this
> week manually signed. I've filed JIRA SPARK-22055 & SPARK-22054
As per the conversation happening around the signing of releases I'm
cancelling this vote. If folks agree with the temporary solution there I'll
try and get a new RC out shortly but if we end up blocking on migrating the
Jenkins jobs it could take a bit longer.
On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 1:30 AM, yum
That sounds like a pretty good temporary work around if folks agree I'll
cancel release vote for 2.1.2 and work on getting an RC2 out later this
week manually signed. I've filed JIRA SPARK-22055 & SPARK-22054 to port the
release scripts and allow injecting of the RM's key.
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at
For the current release - maybe Holden could just sign the artifacts with
her own key manually, if this is a concern. I don't think that would
require modifying the release pipeline, except to just remove/ignore the
existing signatures.
- Patrick
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Reynold Xin wrot
Does anybody know whether this is a hard blocker? If it is not, we should
probably push 2.1.2 forward quickly and do the infrastructure improvement
in parallel.
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Holden Karau wrote:
> I'm more than willing to help migrate the scripts as part of either this
> relea
I'm more than willing to help migrate the scripts as part of either this
release or the next.
It sounds like there is a consensus developing around changing the process
-- should we hold off on the 2.1.2 release or roll this into the next one?
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Marcelo Vanzin wrot
+1 to this. There should be a script in the Spark repo that has all
the logic needed for a release. That script should take the RM's key
as a parameter.
if there's a desire to keep the current Jenkins job to create the
release, it should be based on that script. But from what I'm seeing
there are
Hey I talked more with Josh Rosen about this who has helped with automation
since I became less involved in release management.
I can think of a few different things that would improve our RM based on
these suggestions:
(1) We could remove signing step from the rest of the automation and as the
R
i will detail how we control access to the jenkins infra tomorrow.
we're pretty well locked down, but there is absolutely room for
improvement.
this thread is also a good reminder that we (RMs + pwendell + ?)
should audit who still has, but does not need direct (or special)
access to jenkins.
reg
One thing we could do is modify the release tooling to allow the key to be
injected each time, thus allowing any RM to insert their own key at build
time.
Patrick
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 4:56 PM Ryan Blue wrote:
> I don't understand why it is necessary to share a release key. If this is
> somet
I don't understand why it is necessary to share a release key. If this is
something that can be automated in a Jenkins job, then can it be a script
with a reasonable set of build requirements for Mac and Ubuntu? That's the
approach I've seen the most in other projects.
I'm also not just concerned
Looks like this thread is touching a few different issues:
- Process documentation: I was trying to learn the details behind the
automation, release signatures, etc in the Spark release management
official documentation (http://spark.apache.org/release-process.html) , and
it looks like not much is
12 matches
Mail list logo