Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 2.0.0 (rc2)
Thanks all for the quick turnaround! Here's my +1 (binding). > source - verify file (signature, MD5, SHA) -- source, tar.gz : OK -- source, zip : OK - extract file -- source, tar.gz : OK -- source, zip : OK - diff-ing extracted files between tar.gz and zip : OK - build source with JDK 8 (-Pall-tests && -Pexternals) -- source, tar.gz : OK - build source dist -- source, tar.gz : OK - build binary dist -- source, tar.gz : OK > binary - verify file (signature, MD5, SHA) -- binary, tar.gz : OK -- binary, zip : OK - extract file -- binary, tar.gz : OK -- binary, zip : OK - diff-ing extracted files between tar.gz and zip : OK - launch daemons : OK - run RollingTopWords (local) : OK - run RollingTopWords (remote) : OK - activate / deactivate / rebalance / kill : OK - logviewer (worker dir, daemon dir) :OK - change log level : OK - thread dump, heap dump, restart worker : OK - log search :OK Note that "profiling worker" and "topology log search" works now which were failing in RC1. Thanks, Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) 2018년 10월 11일 (목) 오전 3:02, Stig Rohde Døssing 님이 작성: > +1 > > Built and ran unit tests from the tag. > Ran ExclamationTopology locally using the Storm tar, verified that UI looks > as expected, that logviewer works, and that there were no errors in the > logs. > Verified the signature and SHA512 for the source and binary tars. > > We should consider deleting the md5 files, Apache's release policy > recommends against including them in a release > https://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution#sigs-and-sums. > > > Den ons. 10. okt. 2018 kl. 17.02 skrev Bobby Evans : > > > +1 > > > > built and ran all of the unit tests from the tag. > > Ran some small perf tests on a single node cluster. Things look really > > good there. > > > > > > On a side note our CI pipeline has been running and passing builds very > > close to this release too. (we are following master currently) and it is > > looking good. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bobby > > > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 4:02 PM Kishorkumar Patil > > > wrote: > > > > > +1 to release this package. > > > > > > I ran basic tests, and fucntionality tested manually some of the UI > > > features and profiling issues reported as part of the blockers. I did > not > > > notice any silent failures either - or any failures/exception in the > > logs. > > > > > > Regards > > > -Kishor > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 4:05 PM P. Taylor Goetz > > wrote: > > > > > > > This is a call to vote on releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0 (rc2) > > > > > > > > Full list of changes in this release: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/storm/apache-storm-2.0.0-rc2/RELEASE_NOTES.html > > > > > > > > The tag/commit to be voted upon is v2.0.0: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=storm.git;a=tree;h=f8d04910dc3fd14534c186232ecf7882d8916f67;hb=f8d04910dc3fd14534c186232ecf7882d8916f67 > > > > > > > > The source archive being voted upon can be found here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/storm/apache-storm-2.0.0-rc2/apache-storm-2.0.0-src.tar.gz > > > > > > > > Other release files, signatures and digests can be found here: > > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/storm/apache-storm-2.0.0-rc2/ > > > > > > > > The release artifacts are signed with the following key: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=storm.git;a=blob_plain;f=KEYS;hb=22b832708295fa2c15c4f3c70ac0d2bc6fded4bd > > > > > > > > The Nexus staging repository for this release is: > > > > > > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachestorm-1071 > > > > > > > > Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Storm 2.0.0. > > > > > > > > When voting, please list the actions taken to verify the release. > > > > > > > > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Storm 2.0.0 > > > > [ ] 0 No opinion > > > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... > > > > > > > > Thanks to everyone who contributed to this release. > > > > > > > > -Taylor > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Cleaning Up Old Pull Requests STORM-3250
Thanks for explaining, that makes sense. It's probably easier to go over the issues once the PRs are closed, instead of having to handle them all at the same time. Den ons. 10. okt. 2018 kl. 20.27 skrev Derek Dagit : > > What is the value in keeping the associated Jira issues around though? > > 1) I had thought Jira issues could be valid even if they are stale, whereas > pull requests typically are not valid when they go stale. > 2) It is less effort. :) > > The simplest thing to do would be to run a similar query (not updated in > 2018) and close the issues with a common message. > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-579?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%20statusCategory%20!%3D%20done%20AND%20updatedDate%20%3C%20startOfYear()%20ORDER%20BY%20updated%20ASC > > It seems there are currently 800+ issues that match. That is an awful lot. > I would be open to handling these in bulk too if that is what we want. > > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 1:19 PM Hugo Louro wrote: > > > Derek, I am OK with closing them all. By phase I meant perhaps leaving > some > > of the most recent one's in case the author wants to resume them... but I > > guess he can always reopen them. > > Stig, the JIRAs I think the should be handled on an individual basis. If > > they are still revenant, leave the JIRA open hoping someone will pick it > > up. If they are no longer relevant, perhaps close as "will not fix" or > > something like that. > > > > Hugo > > > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:12 AM Stig Rohde Døssing < > > stigdoess...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 to close old PRs. > > > > > > What is the value in keeping the associated Jira issues around though? > > > > > > Den tir. 9. okt. 2018 kl. 17.18 skrev Derek Dagit > > > > >: > > > > > > > > Is the idea to remove them all in one batch, or have the removal > > > process > > > > through phases ? > > > > > > > > Yeah, the idea was to close them all in one batch. We do not want to > > > close > > > > pull requests that have value, and we want to balance this with the > > > effort > > > > required to review each one to see if it instead should be kept open. > > > > > > > > If we are interested in putting in more effort, then we could remove > in > > > > phases. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 5:30 PM Hugo Louro > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 to remove old PRs. If any PRs still warrant any value we could > try > > > > > reaching out to the creator to see if he wants to follow up with > it. > > Is > > > > the > > > > > idea to remove them all in one batch, or have the removal process > > > through > > > > > phases ? > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 3:26 PM Jungtaek Lim > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 It doesn't look like there're any critical PRs in the list, > and > > it > > > > is > > > > > > pretty less chance we could connect with PR authors. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018년 10월 9일 (화) 오전 5:08, Kishorkumar Patil > > > > > >님이 > > > > > > 작성: > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1. > > > > > > > It would be nice to clean up old clutter while we are getting > > ready > > > > for > > > > > > > days past 2.x > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Kishor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 3:52 PM Bobby Evans > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds good to me > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 2:50 PM Derek Dagit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently there are over 150 open pull requests on the > Apache > > > > Storm > > > > > > > > GitHub > > > > > > > > > project. Over 100 of these have not been modified in 2018. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems we are unlikely to handle each one of these > without > > > > > > > significant > > > > > > > > > effort and time. Looking at many of them, they seem to be > > > > abandoned > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > requester. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose in STORM-3250 that we close all pull requests > that > > > have > > > > > not > > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > > updated in 2018 and leave any corresponding Jira issues as > > they > > > > > are. > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > > there are any pull requests among these should remain open, > > > > please > > > > > > let > > > > > > > me > > > > > > > > > know. I plan to wait at least a week before requesting any > > > > changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/storm/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A%3C2018-01-01 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Derek > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Derek > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Derek >
Re: Cleaning Up Old Pull Requests STORM-3250
> What is the value in keeping the associated Jira issues around though? 1) I had thought Jira issues could be valid even if they are stale, whereas pull requests typically are not valid when they go stale. 2) It is less effort. :) The simplest thing to do would be to run a similar query (not updated in 2018) and close the issues with a common message. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-579?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%20statusCategory%20!%3D%20done%20AND%20updatedDate%20%3C%20startOfYear()%20ORDER%20BY%20updated%20ASC It seems there are currently 800+ issues that match. That is an awful lot. I would be open to handling these in bulk too if that is what we want. On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 1:19 PM Hugo Louro wrote: > Derek, I am OK with closing them all. By phase I meant perhaps leaving some > of the most recent one's in case the author wants to resume them... but I > guess he can always reopen them. > Stig, the JIRAs I think the should be handled on an individual basis. If > they are still revenant, leave the JIRA open hoping someone will pick it > up. If they are no longer relevant, perhaps close as "will not fix" or > something like that. > > Hugo > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:12 AM Stig Rohde Døssing < > stigdoess...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > +1 to close old PRs. > > > > What is the value in keeping the associated Jira issues around though? > > > > Den tir. 9. okt. 2018 kl. 17.18 skrev Derek Dagit > > >: > > > > > > Is the idea to remove them all in one batch, or have the removal > > process > > > through phases ? > > > > > > Yeah, the idea was to close them all in one batch. We do not want to > > close > > > pull requests that have value, and we want to balance this with the > > effort > > > required to review each one to see if it instead should be kept open. > > > > > > If we are interested in putting in more effort, then we could remove in > > > phases. > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 5:30 PM Hugo Louro wrote: > > > > > > > +1 to remove old PRs. If any PRs still warrant any value we could try > > > > reaching out to the creator to see if he wants to follow up with it. > Is > > > the > > > > idea to remove them all in one batch, or have the removal process > > through > > > > phases ? > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 3:26 PM Jungtaek Lim > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 It doesn't look like there're any critical PRs in the list, and > it > > > is > > > > > pretty less chance we could connect with PR authors. > > > > > > > > > > -Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > > > > > > > > > 2018년 10월 9일 (화) 오전 5:08, Kishorkumar Patil > > > >님이 > > > > > 작성: > > > > > > > > > > > +1. > > > > > > It would be nice to clean up old clutter while we are getting > ready > > > for > > > > > > days past 2.x > > > > > > > > > > > > -Kishor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 3:52 PM Bobby Evans > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds good to me > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 2:50 PM Derek Dagit > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently there are over 150 open pull requests on the Apache > > > Storm > > > > > > > GitHub > > > > > > > > project. Over 100 of these have not been modified in 2018. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems we are unlikely to handle each one of these without > > > > > > significant > > > > > > > > effort and time. Looking at many of them, they seem to be > > > abandoned > > > > > by > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > requester. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose in STORM-3250 that we close all pull requests that > > have > > > > not > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > updated in 2018 and leave any corresponding Jira issues as > they > > > > are. > > > > > If > > > > > > > > there are any pull requests among these should remain open, > > > please > > > > > let > > > > > > me > > > > > > > > know. I plan to wait at least a week before requesting any > > > changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/storm/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A%3C2018-01-01 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Derek > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Derek > > > > > > -- Derek
Re: Cleaning Up Old Pull Requests STORM-3250
Derek, I am OK with closing them all. By phase I meant perhaps leaving some of the most recent one's in case the author wants to resume them... but I guess he can always reopen them. Stig, the JIRAs I think the should be handled on an individual basis. If they are still revenant, leave the JIRA open hoping someone will pick it up. If they are no longer relevant, perhaps close as "will not fix" or something like that. Hugo On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:12 AM Stig Rohde Døssing wrote: > +1 to close old PRs. > > What is the value in keeping the associated Jira issues around though? > > Den tir. 9. okt. 2018 kl. 17.18 skrev Derek Dagit >: > > > > Is the idea to remove them all in one batch, or have the removal > process > > through phases ? > > > > Yeah, the idea was to close them all in one batch. We do not want to > close > > pull requests that have value, and we want to balance this with the > effort > > required to review each one to see if it instead should be kept open. > > > > If we are interested in putting in more effort, then we could remove in > > phases. > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 5:30 PM Hugo Louro wrote: > > > > > +1 to remove old PRs. If any PRs still warrant any value we could try > > > reaching out to the creator to see if he wants to follow up with it. Is > > the > > > idea to remove them all in one batch, or have the removal process > through > > > phases ? > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 3:26 PM Jungtaek Lim wrote: > > > > > > > +1 It doesn't look like there're any critical PRs in the list, and it > > is > > > > pretty less chance we could connect with PR authors. > > > > > > > > -Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > > > > > > > 2018년 10월 9일 (화) 오전 5:08, Kishorkumar Patil > >님이 > > > > 작성: > > > > > > > > > +1. > > > > > It would be nice to clean up old clutter while we are getting ready > > for > > > > > days past 2.x > > > > > > > > > > -Kishor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 3:52 PM Bobby Evans > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds good to me > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 2:50 PM Derek Dagit > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently there are over 150 open pull requests on the Apache > > Storm > > > > > > GitHub > > > > > > > project. Over 100 of these have not been modified in 2018. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems we are unlikely to handle each one of these without > > > > > significant > > > > > > > effort and time. Looking at many of them, they seem to be > > abandoned > > > > by > > > > > > the > > > > > > > requester. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose in STORM-3250 that we close all pull requests that > have > > > not > > > > > > been > > > > > > > updated in 2018 and leave any corresponding Jira issues as they > > > are. > > > > If > > > > > > > there are any pull requests among these should remain open, > > please > > > > let > > > > > me > > > > > > > know. I plan to wait at least a week before requesting any > > changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/storm/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A%3C2018-01-01 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Derek > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Derek > > >
Re: Cleaning Up Old Pull Requests STORM-3250
+1 to close old PRs. What is the value in keeping the associated Jira issues around though? Den tir. 9. okt. 2018 kl. 17.18 skrev Derek Dagit : > > Is the idea to remove them all in one batch, or have the removal process > through phases ? > > Yeah, the idea was to close them all in one batch. We do not want to close > pull requests that have value, and we want to balance this with the effort > required to review each one to see if it instead should be kept open. > > If we are interested in putting in more effort, then we could remove in > phases. > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 5:30 PM Hugo Louro wrote: > > > +1 to remove old PRs. If any PRs still warrant any value we could try > > reaching out to the creator to see if he wants to follow up with it. Is > the > > idea to remove them all in one batch, or have the removal process through > > phases ? > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 3:26 PM Jungtaek Lim wrote: > > > > > +1 It doesn't look like there're any critical PRs in the list, and it > is > > > pretty less chance we could connect with PR authors. > > > > > > -Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > > > > > 2018년 10월 9일 (화) 오전 5:08, Kishorkumar Patil >님이 > > > 작성: > > > > > > > +1. > > > > It would be nice to clean up old clutter while we are getting ready > for > > > > days past 2.x > > > > > > > > -Kishor > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 3:52 PM Bobby Evans wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > Sounds good to me > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 2:50 PM Derek Dagit > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Currently there are over 150 open pull requests on the Apache > Storm > > > > > GitHub > > > > > > project. Over 100 of these have not been modified in 2018. > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems we are unlikely to handle each one of these without > > > > significant > > > > > > effort and time. Looking at many of them, they seem to be > abandoned > > > by > > > > > the > > > > > > requester. > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose in STORM-3250 that we close all pull requests that have > > not > > > > > been > > > > > > updated in 2018 and leave any corresponding Jira issues as they > > are. > > > If > > > > > > there are any pull requests among these should remain open, > please > > > let > > > > me > > > > > > know. I plan to wait at least a week before requesting any > changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/storm/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A%3C2018-01-01 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Derek > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Derek >
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 2.0.0 (rc2)
+1 Built and ran unit tests from the tag. Ran ExclamationTopology locally using the Storm tar, verified that UI looks as expected, that logviewer works, and that there were no errors in the logs. Verified the signature and SHA512 for the source and binary tars. We should consider deleting the md5 files, Apache's release policy recommends against including them in a release https://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution#sigs-and-sums. Den ons. 10. okt. 2018 kl. 17.02 skrev Bobby Evans : > +1 > > built and ran all of the unit tests from the tag. > Ran some small perf tests on a single node cluster. Things look really > good there. > > > On a side note our CI pipeline has been running and passing builds very > close to this release too. (we are following master currently) and it is > looking good. > > Thanks, > > Bobby > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 4:02 PM Kishorkumar Patil > wrote: > > > +1 to release this package. > > > > I ran basic tests, and fucntionality tested manually some of the UI > > features and profiling issues reported as part of the blockers. I did not > > notice any silent failures either - or any failures/exception in the > logs. > > > > Regards > > -Kishor > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 4:05 PM P. Taylor Goetz > wrote: > > > > > This is a call to vote on releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0 (rc2) > > > > > > Full list of changes in this release: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/storm/apache-storm-2.0.0-rc2/RELEASE_NOTES.html > > > > > > The tag/commit to be voted upon is v2.0.0: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=storm.git;a=tree;h=f8d04910dc3fd14534c186232ecf7882d8916f67;hb=f8d04910dc3fd14534c186232ecf7882d8916f67 > > > > > > The source archive being voted upon can be found here: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/storm/apache-storm-2.0.0-rc2/apache-storm-2.0.0-src.tar.gz > > > > > > Other release files, signatures and digests can be found here: > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/storm/apache-storm-2.0.0-rc2/ > > > > > > The release artifacts are signed with the following key: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=storm.git;a=blob_plain;f=KEYS;hb=22b832708295fa2c15c4f3c70ac0d2bc6fded4bd > > > > > > The Nexus staging repository for this release is: > > > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachestorm-1071 > > > > > > Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Storm 2.0.0. > > > > > > When voting, please list the actions taken to verify the release. > > > > > > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > > > > > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Storm 2.0.0 > > > [ ] 0 No opinion > > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... > > > > > > Thanks to everyone who contributed to this release. > > > > > > -Taylor > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 2.0.0 (rc2)
+1 built and ran all of the unit tests from the tag. Ran some small perf tests on a single node cluster. Things look really good there. On a side note our CI pipeline has been running and passing builds very close to this release too. (we are following master currently) and it is looking good. Thanks, Bobby On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 4:02 PM Kishorkumar Patil wrote: > +1 to release this package. > > I ran basic tests, and fucntionality tested manually some of the UI > features and profiling issues reported as part of the blockers. I did not > notice any silent failures either - or any failures/exception in the logs. > > Regards > -Kishor > > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 4:05 PM P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > > > This is a call to vote on releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0 (rc2) > > > > Full list of changes in this release: > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/storm/apache-storm-2.0.0-rc2/RELEASE_NOTES.html > > > > The tag/commit to be voted upon is v2.0.0: > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=storm.git;a=tree;h=f8d04910dc3fd14534c186232ecf7882d8916f67;hb=f8d04910dc3fd14534c186232ecf7882d8916f67 > > > > The source archive being voted upon can be found here: > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/storm/apache-storm-2.0.0-rc2/apache-storm-2.0.0-src.tar.gz > > > > Other release files, signatures and digests can be found here: > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/storm/apache-storm-2.0.0-rc2/ > > > > The release artifacts are signed with the following key: > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=storm.git;a=blob_plain;f=KEYS;hb=22b832708295fa2c15c4f3c70ac0d2bc6fded4bd > > > > The Nexus staging repository for this release is: > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachestorm-1071 > > > > Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Storm 2.0.0. > > > > When voting, please list the actions taken to verify the release. > > > > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > > > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Storm 2.0.0 > > [ ] 0 No opinion > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... > > > > Thanks to everyone who contributed to this release. > > > > -Taylor > > >
