hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Yang <ud1...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] First hbase-2.0.0-alpha-1 Release Candidate is available
Date Wed, 21 Jun 2017 03:27:13 GMT
Or we can just rename 2.0.0 version to alpha-1 and delete the current
alpha-1 and move issues under old alpha-1 to new one?

Thanks,
Phil


2017-06-21 11:20 GMT+08:00 Phil Yang <ud1937@gmail.com>:

> In JIRA there are many resolved issues whose fix version is 2.0.0, they
> are "released" when 2.0.0-alpha-1 released, do we need change them to
> 2.0.0-alpha-1? 2.0.0 should be a formal version after alpha/beta?
>
> Thanks,
> Phil
>
>
> 2017-06-21 1:00 GMT+08:00 Stack <stack@duboce.net>:
>
>> Thanks Josh.
>>
>> Sean noticed that I'd not actually pushed the alpha to our release dir.
>> Just did that.
>>
>> St.Ack
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Done ;)
>> >
>> > There were two issues still tagged as alpha-1 (JIRA didn't want to show
>> me
>> > them before performing the action), but I bumped them to alpha-2.
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6/20/17 12:19 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Stack,
>> >>
>> >> Can you mark jira version 2.0.0-alpha-1 as released?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Mike
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 10:55 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> With 4 binding votes and 1 non-binding, vote passes. Let me push out
>> the
>> >>> alpha.
>> >>> Thanks to all who voted.
>> >>> St.Ack
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Great. Thanks Sean. In-line...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> +1
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> details below, a few things to clean up for later alpha/betas.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> * checksums are all good
>> >>>>> * signatures are made with two different keys. should clean
up by
>> next
>> >>>>> alpha.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> src / bin artifacts are signed with 8ACC93D2, as you mentioned
in
>> the
>> >>>>> VOTE. However, this key is not in our project's KEYS file.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Yes. Will fix.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> maven staged repository are signed with 30CD0996, which is in our
>> KEYS
>> >>>>> file so those check out fine.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> * the tag 2.0.0-alpha-1RC0 does point to
>> >>>>> c830a0f47f58d4892dd3300032c8244d6278aecc, which matches the
source
>> >>>>> artifact after accounting HBASE-13088
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The tag isn't signed; would be good to make sure we do tag signing
>> in
>> >>>>> betas so that it's ready to go come GA time.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Next time through, I'll update our 'How to RC' doc and will
add
>> above.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> (side note, it would be good to get a decision on HBASE-13088 for
the
>> >>>>> beta releases. been over 2 years)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> * the source tarball creates a binary assembly that looks as
close
>> to
>> >>>>> the posted binary artifact as I've seen branch-1 do.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> idle interest, but our binary convenience artifact has jumped
from
>> >>>>> ~100MiB in branch-1 release to ~160MiB. If anyone has time to
dig in
>> >>>>> on why, probably worth checking. (e.g. the docs directory is
~585
>> MiB
>> >>>>> when untared.)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Yes. Its obnoxious (HBASE-18208).
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * shaded artifact binaries are a reasonable number of MiB in size
>> >>>>> (incorrect build flags will result in ~empty jars)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> * LICENSE/NOTICE spot check looks okay.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> we have a ton of places where we have velocity variables instead
of
>> >>>>> copyright years, but IIRC that's a problem on branch-1 right
now
>> too.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> * CHANGES file hasn't been updated correctly
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> currently has details for 0.93.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Will fix next time through.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks Sean,
>> >>>> S
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org
>> >
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> +1
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net>
wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The first release candidate for HBase 2.0.0-alpha-1 is up
at:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>   https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/hbase/hbase-2.0.0-
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> alpha-1RC0/
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>> Maven artifacts are available from a staging directory
here:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>   https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> hbase-1169
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> All was signed w/ my key 8ACC93D2
>> >>>>>>> <http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9816C7FC8ACC93D2>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I tagged the RC as 2.0.0-alpha-1RC0
>> >>>>>>> (c830a0f47f58d4892dd3300032c8244d6278aecc).
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> hbase-2.0.0-alpha-1 will be our first 2.0.0 release.
It is a rough
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> cut
>> >>>
>> >>>> ('alpha') not-for-production preview of what hbase-2.0.0 will look
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> like. It
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> is what we used to call a 'Developer' release[1] meant mostly
for
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> devs
>> >>>
>> >>>> and
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> downstreamers to test drive and flag us early if we there
are
>> issues
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> we’ve
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> missed ahead of our rolling a production-worthy release.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> hbase-2.0.0 includes a fleet of new features that include
a new
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> assignment
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> manager, means for keeping read and write path off-heap,
in-memory
>> >>>>>>> compactions, and more. I have been keeping a running
doc on the
>> state
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> of
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> 2.0.0 here [2]. There is much to do still (see aforementioned
doc).
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> The list of features addressed in 2.0.0 so far can be
found here
>> [4].
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> There
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> are about 2500. The list of ~500 fixes in 2.0.0 exclusively
can be
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> found
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> here [3].
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Please take it for a spin and vote on whether it ok
to put out as
>> our
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> first
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> alpha (bar is low for an 'alpha'). Let the VOTE be open
for 24
>> hours.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>> St.Ack
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> 1. http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.versioning.pre10
>> >>>>>>> 2.
>> >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WCsVlnHjJeKUcl7wHwqb4z9iEu_
>> >>>>>>> ktczrlKHK8N4SZzs/edit#heading=h.v21r9nz8g01j
>> >>>>>>> 3.
>> >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17852?jql=
>> >>>>>>> project%20%3D%20HBASE%20%20and%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.
>> >>>>>>> 0.0%20and%20fixVersion%20not%20in%20(1.0.0%2C%201.0.1%2C%
>> >>>>>>> 201.0.2%2C%201.0.3%2C%201.0.4%2C%201.0.5%2C%201.0.6%2C%201.
>> >>>>>>> 1.0%2C%201.1.1%2C%201.1.2%2C%201.1.3%2C%201.1.4%2C%201.1.5%
>> >>>>>>> 2C%201.1.6%2C%201.1.7%2C%201.1.8%2C%201.1.9%2C%201.1.10%2C%
>> >>>>>>> 201.2.0%2C%201.2.1%2C%201.2.2%2C%201.2.3%2C%201.2.4%2C%201.
>> >>>>>>> 2.5%2C%201.2.6%2C%201.3.0%2C%201.3.1%2C%201.4.0)%20and%20%
>> >>>>>>> 20(status%20%3D%20Open%20or%20status%20%3D%20%22Patch%
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> 20Available%22)
>> >>>
>> >>>> 4.
>> >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-18191?jql=
>> >>>>>>> project%20%3D%20HBASE%20%20and%20(%20fixVersion%20%3D%
>> >>>>>>> 202.0.0)%20and%20(status%20%3D%20Resolved)
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>> Best regards,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>     - Andy
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely.
-
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> Raymond
>> >>>
>> >>>> Teller (via Peter Watts)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message