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

Switch to Threaded View
Flume >> mail # dev >> [VOTE] Release Apache Flume version 1.3.0


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flume version 1.3.0-rc3
Ok, let's do another rc since the same lobs with different versions is probably bad.  

Also I think it's fine to commit to 1.3 without another rc since we are voting on a tag, not the branch.  

--
Brock Noland
Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig)
On Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Mike Percy wrote:

> Hari,
> You're correct that a -1 vote does not veto a release. A savvy user could
> delete one of the jars before deploying to production, but why make them do
> that.
>
> Thanks for the commit.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Hari Shreedharan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>
>
> > Mike,
> >
> > I committed your patch for flume-1.4, and trunk.
> >
> >
> > Brock: As I posted on the jira, if you want it committed to flume-1.3. the
> > RM should decide if another RC is required (looks like there are 3 PMC +1
> > already, unless someone withdraws the +1). If required, please cherry-pick
> > the patch to flume-1.3.0 and roll another RC.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Hari
> >
> > --
> > Hari Shreedharan
> >
> >
> > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Mike Percy wrote:
> >
> > > When I was reviewing the libs I noticed that netty is in there twice
> > with 2
> > > different versions. I don't think we should ship like that.
> > >
> > > So, -1 from me on this RC.
> > >
> > > Details and a patch are here:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLUME-1723
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Brock Noland <[EMAIL PROTECTED](mailto:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED])> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks Hari, I have created FLUME-1722 for this purpose.
> > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLUME-1722
> > > >
> > > > Brock
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Hari Shreedharan
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])> wrote:
> > > > > +1.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is what I checked:
> > > > > 1. Checksums and signatures look good.
> > > > > 2. Verified license file, readme, change log and notice file (more on
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > this below).
> > > > > 3. Built, ran unit tests, ran an agent with the sample config - looks
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > good.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Additional notes:
> > > > > The LICENSE file seems to list three libraries which we do not pull
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > in:
> > > > >
> > > > > commons logging
> > > > > http-client
> > > > > http-core
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We probably should remove these from the license file too.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Hari
> > > > > --
> > > > > Hari Shreedharan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Alexander Alten-Lorenz
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Alex
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Nov 17, 2012, at 4:10 AM, Will McQueen <[EMAIL PROTECTED](mailto:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]) (mailto:
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]))> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 on the release
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Nov 16, 2012, at 6:56 PM, Brock Noland <[EMAIL PROTECTED](mailto:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED])(mailto:
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]))> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks Jarek, I don't think it's a blocker but we should
> > definitely
> > > > fix it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > FWIW, hadoop's LICENSE.txt doesn't even list the licenses of
> > > > binaries
> > > > > > > > and Crunch was just released with many defects to this file.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I've noticed that LICENSE file contains entry
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > protobuf-<version>.jar whereas our binary artifacts seems to be pulling
> > > > protobuf-java-<version>.jar (filled FLUME-1720 [1]). It do need seems