quickstep-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org>
Subject Re: We really need to get going with the podling report
Date Thu, 02 Mar 2017 22:36:49 GMT
Ah, I didn’t notice the artifacts because they weren’t listed in the email. The vote thread
needs to list the URLs of the artifacts and include (in the body of the email) the checksums.
(Why? Because people voting on the release must download those artifacts and check them against
the checksums. And the checksums need to be in the email thread so that no one can later deny
that they voted on these exact artifacts.)

As an example, here’s a fragment from a recent Calcite vote:


The commit to be voted upon:

Its hash is f8ba670de4e283d1532f288de53fdb67fa4dea67.

The artifacts to be voted on are located here:

The hashes of the artifacts are as follows:
apache-calcite-1.11.0-src.tar.gz:    MD5 = 88 FF 46 FC 13 A6 AE 98  BB 53 7D 8C
                                          24 73 D7 12
apache-calcite-1.11.0-src.tar.gz:   SHA1 = 7CDE F906 0665 44F4 6CCA  4021 D515
                                          935A 6243 A869
apache-calcite-1.11.0-src.tar.gz: RMD160 = 0783 C9BD 5397 B045 45AB  F750 7541
                                          611F A78A D31C
apache-calcite-1.11.0-src.tar.gz: SHA224 = 024B9857 29EA0FCD 0315E10C C75DD1F1
                                          A50A1611 93ED3577 C91F5E3A
apache-calcite-1.11.0-src.tar.gz: SHA256 = 10976E10 3C420300 AFC7AD83 810755CA
                                          6DE31081 DDFB3325 7721A204 ACDA0D26
apache-calcite-1.11.0-src.tar.gz: SHA384 = 178FC2CC 9064A51B 30AE7454 BA7A2507
                                          7A555E05 CB758FE0 642C4877 622BE539
                                          DAF7BCC2 CB9D2244 335FF0C7 5513DA7B
apache-calcite-1.11.0-src.tar.gz: SHA512 = E539EE3C 39DF3358 DABC4216 861C88D3
                                          4F7030F3 34C7D759 21CC47B9 8D4E5B09
                                          124AEA8D F5AC3B3D 29BFAADB A027102C
                                          795F0DAF 778AFAC2 93F1D902 E2D62B2A
apache-calcite-1.11.0-src.zip:    MD5 = F0 FD C7 7F A0 32 E4 95  E3 E5 3D 47 B7
                                       B2 C4 8D
apache-calcite-1.11.0-src.zip:   SHA1 = 1347 67F0 1D70 4AB9 FBB2  7EEF 61F1 1A8A
                                       86E9 E26B
apache-calcite-1.11.0-src.zip: RMD160 = EE4D 5C2F 4396 2758 9DF0  C5CA 961A 0631
                                       64A8 E060
apache-calcite-1.11.0-src.zip: SHA224 = 28A18665 3695592E A15C2CF1 0A684A15
                                       D5A53243 CB712249 FDBEBF65
apache-calcite-1.11.0-src.zip: SHA256 = 7AEF77DE EF34612D 3AA6BF72 F02163A2
                                       D8808658 CAB8980B B35D454D AC3A5BB7
apache-calcite-1.11.0-src.zip: SHA384 = E6EDFAFD 8E2C55B9 9F19B75F F276A2AF
                                       82E4DC6B 8788D143 BAB42CEC D029ACD1
                                       E315C857 9645DF30 E41DEA8D 8A2767AA
apache-calcite-1.11.0-src.zip: SHA512 = F2BEEBB4 649DAA40 B73EBE51 D22242D8
                                       6250B27E 94F4C100 5915E6D5 8A2EF1A5
                                       1BFBB37E C1670D68 C0427FB4 85785CE4
                                       504BC1A5 DFEFE2EE 288323C7 DCD5DEF4

Release artifacts are signed with the following key:

Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Calcite 1.11.0.


I recommend that Quickstep adopt similar boilerplate, because a release vote is actually a
rather formal protocol. The full thread is here:  https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/calcite-dev/201701.mbox/%3C5C408E13-C276-4902-A0FC-802736574168%40apache.org%3E


> On Mar 2, 2017, at 1:09 PM, Marc Spehlmann <spehl.apache@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have been publishing to the dev/ svn
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/quickstep/0.1.0/RC5/
> Maybe we missed something. Is there a better way to announce this?
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Julian Hyde <jhyde@apache.org> wrote:
>> I haven’t been voting on the RCs because I haven’t yet seen a “release
>> candidate” — a signed artifact (tarball) and its checksums. It seems that
>> while the code is in good shape, release packaging needs some work. I’ll
>> weigh in on the latest RC vote thread.
>> Julian
>>> On Mar 2, 2017, at 12:33 PM, Harshad Deshmukh <harshad@cs.wisc.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Julian,
>>> Thanks for your inputs. I will modify the report accordingly and send it
>> out for review.
>>> Just an update on the release progress - Marc floated a vote for RC5
>> (yesterday evening CST) on the dev list, which has gotten more than 3 +1s
>> so far. It appears that this release candidate (RC5) should be the final
>> one, therefore I thought this week should be a realistic target for the
>> release. Marc should have an idea about the next steps, so if I
>> misunderstood something w.r.t the release estimates, please let me know.
>>> On 03/02/2017 02:12 PM, Marc Spehlmann wrote:
>>>> Hi Julian,
>>>> I agree that 'this week' is optimistic. Though, we have been going
>> through
>>>> the voting process on @dev, it's likely that the current RC will not
>> pass,
>>>> meaning that we'll need to restart the whole process, as you said.
>>>> Considering, 'this month' is probably a more realistic wording.
>>>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Julian Hyde <jhyde@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> In answer to the “How does the podling rate their maturity?”. The
>>>>> incubator report used to have categories "Ready to Graduate", “Some
>>>>> Community Growth", "No Release" and "Still Getting Started.” Out of
>> these,
>>>>> I think “No release” fits best. You can add that the first release
>> well
>>>>> under way.
>>>>> "We will have our first release this week” is a bit optimistic.
>> Remember
>>>>> you need to create a release candidate, pass a vote on the Quickstep
>> list
>>>>> (which takes 3 working days), repeat if there is a problem with the
>> RC, and
>>>>> then pass a vote on the incubator list (which takes 3 working days).
>> Again,
>>>>> the incubator vote might fail, and in fact probably will the first or
>>>>> second time.
>>>>> A true statement is “we are almost ready to start a vote on our first
>>>>> release candidate”.
>>>>> Julian
>>>>>> On Mar 2, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Harshad Deshmukh <harshad@cs.wisc.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Roman,
>>>>>> Apologies for the delay. I am not sure how to address two of these
>>>>> questions, hence left them blank. Any inputs in that regard should be
>>>>> helpful. Can you please review the following report?
>>>>>> *   Your project name
>>>>>> Apache (incubating) Quickstep
>>>>>> *   A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge
>>>>>>   the project or necessarily of its field
>>>>>> Apache Quickstep is high-performance database engine designed to
>> exploit
>>>>> the full potential
>>>>>> of hardware that is packed in modern computing boxes (servers and
>>>>> laptops).
>>>>>> The initial version targets single-node in-memory environments.
>>>>>> *   A list of the three most important issues to address in the move
>>>>>>   towards graduation.
>>>>>> 1) Building a Quickstep community
>>>>>> 2) More adoption of the Quickstep technology
>>>>>> 3) Making the technology easier to understand and use
>>>>>> *   Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need
>> be
>>>>>>   aware of
>>>>>> None
>>>>>> *   How has the community developed since the last report
>>>>>> *   How has the project developed since the last report.
>>>>>> We will have our first release this week. Since the last report,
>>>>>> 1) We have made several changes to the code base.
>>>>>> Some highlights are: Cleaning up the third party library code as
>> the
>>>>> Apache hygiene, improve the code performance by adding several novel
>>>>> features.
>>>>>> 2) Preparation for release -
>>>>>> Created scripts and step by step procedural documentation for how
>>>>> make a Quickstep release. Scripts have been added to the main repo
>> while
>>>>> documentation is on confluence.
>>>>>> We went through several release candidates. During this period, we
>>>>> identified some usability issues on our supported platforms and fixed
>> them.
>>>>> Quickstep is now on schedule for a release later this week.
>>>>>> *   How does the podling rate their own maturity.
>>>>>> On 02/28/2017 10:23 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>>>>>>> Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Harshad
>>> --
>>> Thanks,
>>> Harshad

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