Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ghelmling@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.215.41 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAha9a3pHssi6bGKcJphCC2MEioXtT8N3xd0AxROb47N+ytfMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAAha9a1U77jGmycShcc=Oum8zQ2OBj6qP2cCK0+kmmEkbAzuJA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1327606778.87256.YahooMailNeo@web164517.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<1327607446.66036.YahooMailNeo@web164513.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<CAAha9a3pHssi6bGKcJphCC2MEioXtT8N3xd0AxROb47N+ytfMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:30:04 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CADfYSXS=AAiP-ZM1-GwtmFH_pJ0PV=BX-SXjydjgs2Nhx-9Frw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: No security sources in 0.92.0 release tarballs.
From: Gary Helmling <ghelmling@gmail.com>
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jon,

Thanks for spotting it.  I'll pick it up.  Assuming this means changes
to src/assembly/all.xml...  I'll read up on the assembly plugin in.

--gh


On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Andrew, Gary,
>
> Sorry, I should have written the initial message a little more clearly, b=
ut
> Gary's clarification is spot on.
>
> I've filed it as a 0.94 and 0.92.1 blocker.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5288
>
> Can one of you guys pick it up the fix for this?
>
> Jon.
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>wro=
te:
>
>> So I reread this and I probably misunderstood for a moment what Jon was
>> saying.
>>
>> I mentioned this in another email last week, regardless it is important =
to
>> tag security as alpha and anyone who wants to seriously use it for more
>> than just secure RPC is going to need to patch with HBASE-5195.
>>
>> So I presume 5195 and the sources will appear in 0.92.1.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> =A0 =A0 - Andy
>>
>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>> (via Tom White)
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
>> > To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
>> > Cc:
>> > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:39 AM
>> > Subject: Re: No security sources in 0.92.0 release tarballs.
>> >
>> > Can't believe I missed that. I haven't been paying enough attention to
>> > upstream.
>> >
>> >
>> > However, this isn't the worst thing that could have happened, without
>> > HBASE-5195 in the upstream sources security isn't going to adequately
>> > protect Gets. Also there is a shell nit to fix (HBASE-5265).
>> >
>> >
>> > Put it 0.94. No problem. It wouldn't be unreasonable to consider
>> > coprocessors more baked than security in upstream.
>> >
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > =A0 =A0 - Andy
>> >
>> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet He=
in
>> (via
>> > Tom White)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> ________________________________
>> >> =A0From: Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com>
>> >> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
>> >> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:29 AM
>> >> Subject: No security sources in 0.92.0 release tarballs.
>> >>
>> >> Ugh, it looks like we all missed that 0.92.0 release tarballs (both
>> >> security compile and normal) do not contain any of the source of the
>> >> security work.
>> >>
>> >> Jon.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
>> >> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> >> // jon@cloudera.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // jon@cloudera.com