+1 binding
verified sigs + tests pass
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
OK. I will change my vote to +1. The sha that Brock demonstrates is the
same one that I saw when I was checking sums.
I would *strongly* encourage the project to improve things
[x] +1 Release this as Apache Parquet Format 2.3.0
verified sigs, hashes, no jars, and inspected tarball.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Ryan Blue b...@apache.org wrote:
Hi everyone,
I propose RC2 to be released as official Apache Parquet 2.3.0 release.
A similar vote has passed in the
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Ryan Blue b...@cloudera.com wrote:
In the mean time, if you take a look at the .travis.yml file, you can see
the preparation steps used to run CI jobs. That's what I usually point
people
OK. I will change my vote to +1. The sha that Brock demonstrates is the
same one that I saw when I was checking sums.
I would *strongly* encourage the project to improve things before the next
release by:
- fix the sha has to not be compressed. This is unconventional and thus
not a good
Hi,
Changing my vote from +0 to +1 binding.
Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
+1 binding
verified signatures, hashes, no binaries, compiles and tests pass
-Jake
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Ryan Blue b...@apache.org wrote:
Hi everyone,
I propose RC2 to be released as official Apache Parquet 2.3.0 release.
A similar vote has passed in the podling, with 4 +1
On 02/16/2015 11:16 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
I have downloaded this release and verified the signature and md5
checksum. The SHA checksum is a binary file and it isn't obvious to me how
to check it. How was it produced?
I have verified that the LICENSE and NOTICE files are present and seem
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Ryan Blue b...@cloudera.com wrote:
In the mean time, if you take a look at the .travis.yml file, you can see
the preparation steps used to run CI jobs. That's what I usually point
people at instead of maintaining it in two places, but I agree that
shouldn't be
Hi everyone,
I propose RC2 to be released as official Apache Parquet 2.3.0 release.
A similar vote has passed in the podling, with 4 +1 votes and 0 -1 or +0
votes. (With one binding +1 from an IPMC member.)
The commit id is 7a6079ed5ddfa98a59cf8ac8728bcf5b0a1233b9
* This corresponds to the
I have downloaded this release and verified the signature and md5
checksum. The SHA checksum is a binary file and it isn't obvious to me how
to check it. How was it produced?
I have verified that the LICENSE and NOTICE files are present and seem
well-formed. I have verified that the DISCLAIMER
Hi,
+0 binding (for now) as cant compile from source. Will try again tomorrow.
- hashes and signature correct
- LICENSE and NOTICE have minor issues (see below)
- DISCLAIMER exists
- incubating in source package name
- all source files have correct headers
- no unexpected binary files in release
Checking in the generated code and only conditionally running thrift would
make checking this much easier.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Julien Le Dem jul...@twitter.com.invalid
wrote:
You need thrift 0.7
https://github.com/Parquet/parquet-mr/wiki/Developer-documentation
We should add a
You need thrift 0.7
https://github.com/Parquet/parquet-mr/wiki/Developer-documentation
We should add a mention of this.
On Monday, February 16, 2015, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com
wrote:
Hi,
+0 binding (for now) as cant compile from source. Will try again tomorrow.
- hashes and
13 matches
Mail list logo
