Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
Kafka, mail # dev - [VOTE] Apache Kafka Release 0.8.0 - Candidate 3


+
Joe Stein 2013-11-08, 20:56
+
Joel Koshy 2013-11-08, 23:30
+
Jun Rao 2013-11-09, 04:53
+
Neha Narkhede 2013-11-09, 22:00
+
David Arthur 2013-11-11, 15:07
+
Joe Stein 2013-11-13, 19:37
+
Joe Stein 2013-11-04, 01:56
+
Joel Koshy 2013-11-07, 19:29
+
Joe Stein 2013-11-08, 00:26
+
Jun Rao 2013-11-05, 15:15
+
Neha Narkhede 2013-11-06, 17:16
+
Joe Stein 2013-11-25, 20:37
+
Joel Koshy 2013-11-26, 21:15
+
Joe Stein 2013-11-26, 21:24
+
Joe Stein 2013-11-26, 22:34
+
Jun Rao 2013-11-27, 18:24
+
Joel Koshy 2013-11-27, 19:36
+
David Arthur 2013-12-02, 16:00
+
Kostya Golikov 2013-12-02, 17:12
+
Joe Stein 2013-12-03, 20:05
+
Joe Stein 2013-12-02, 17:14
+
Neha Narkhede 2013-12-02, 17:19
+
Joe Stein 2013-12-02, 17:58
+
David Arthur 2013-12-02, 18:34
+
Joe Stein 2013-12-03, 20:12
+
David Arthur 2013-12-02, 18:19
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kafka Release 0.8.0 - Candidate 5
Jun Rao 2013-12-03, 06:41
The release voting is based on lazy majority (
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Bylaws#Bylaws-Voting). So
a -1 doesn't kill the release. The question is whether those issues are
really show stoppers.

Thanks,

Jun
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:19 AM, David Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Inline:
>
>
> On 12/2/13 11:59 AM, Joe Stein wrote:
>
>> General future thought comment first: lets be careful please to raising
>> issues as show stoppers that have been there previously (especially if
>> greater than one version previous release back also has the problem) and
>> can get fixed in a subsequent release and is only now more pressing
>> because
>> we know about them... seeing something should not necessarily always
>> create
>> priority (sometimes sure, of course but not always that is not the best
>> way
>> to manage changes).  The VOTE thread should be to artifacts and what we
>> are
>> releasing as proper and correct per Apache guidelines... and to make sure
>> that the person doing the release doesn't do something incorrect ... like
>> using the wrong version of JDK to build =8^/.  If we are not happy with
>> release as ready to ship then lets not call a VOTE and save the prolonged
>> weeks that drag out with so many release candidates.  The community
>> suffers
>> from this.
>>
> +1 If we can get most of this release preparation stuff automated, then we
> can iterate on it in a release branch before tagging and voting.
>
>  ok, now on to RC5 ...lets extend the vote until 12pm PT tomorrow ...
>> hopefully a few more hours for other folks to comment and discuss the
>> issues you raised with my $0.02852425 included below and follow-ups as
>> they
>> become necessary... I am also out of pocket in a few hours until tomorrow
>> morning so if it passed I would not be able to publish and announce or if
>> failed look towards RC6 anyways =8^)
>>
>> /*******************************************
>>   Joe Stein
>>   Founder, Principal Consultant
>>   Big Data Open Source Security LLC
>>   http://www.stealth.ly
>>   Twitter: @allthingshadoop <http://www.twitter.com/allthingshadoop>
>> ********************************************/
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:00 AM, David Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>  Seems like most people are verifying the src, so I'll pick on the
>>> binaries
>>> and Maven stuff ;)
>>>
>>> A few problems I see:
>>>
>>> There are some vestigial Git files in the src download: an empty .git and
>>> .gitignore
>>>
>>>  Ok, I can do a better job with 0.8.1 but I am not sure this is very
>> different than beta1 and not necessarily a show stopper for 0.8.0
>> requiring
>> another release candidate, is it?  I think updating the release docs and
>> rmdir .git after the rm -fr and rm .gitignore moving forward makes sense.
>>
> Agreed, not a show stopper.
>
>
>>
>>  In the source download, I see the SBT license in LICENSE which seems
>>> correct (since we distribute an SBT binary), but in the binary download I
>>> see the same license. Don't we need the Scala license (
>>> http://www.scala-lang.org/license.html) in the binary distribution?
>>>
>>>  I fixed this already not only in the binary release
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1131 but also in the JAR
>> files
>> that are published to Maven
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1133are you checking from
>> http://people.apache.org/~joestein/kafka-0.8.0-candidate5/ because I just
>> downloaded again and it looks alright to me.  If not then definitely this
>> RC should be shot down because it does not do what we are saying it is
>> doing.. but if it is wrong can you be more specific and create a JIRA with
>> the fix because I thought I got it right already... but if not then lets
>> get it right because that is why we pulled the release in RC3
>>
> The LICENSE file in both the src and binary downloads includes "SBT
> LICENSE" at the end. I could be wrong, but I think the src download should
> include the SBT licnese and the binary download should include the Scala

 
+
David Arthur 2013-12-03, 14:07
+
Jun Rao 2013-12-03, 15:28
+
Joe Stein 2013-12-03, 19:59
+
Neha Narkhede 2013-12-02, 18:27
+
Neha Narkhede 2013-12-02, 01:01
+
Joe Stein 2014-02-28, 14:27