You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@drill.apache.org by Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> on 2013/09/06 22:11:07 UTC
RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Hello,
Please find updated artifacts that include fixes for sample data directory
and rebuffed-only jars in the binary distribution. Source release should
be unchanged but should be checked nonetheless.
http://people.apache.org/~jacques/apache-drill-1.0.0-m1.rc3/
Vote for 3 days. Closes Monday, 1:30 Pacific.
Thanks,
Jacques
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
Resending on the proper thread. Sorry for the extra noise:
-1 (binding)
Notes below on the artifacts.
I'm also curious why this is being called 1.0 milestone 1 as opposed to something lower? I know the community has been at it for a while (this is purely my opinion and isn't binding), so it isn't to say it isn't close to a 1.0, I guess I would just somewhat expect that 1.0 is what comes out when the project graduates to a TLP, which presumably happens after doing a couple of releases. Also, a 1.0 implies, to me anyway, some level of backwards compatibility going forward. Is this community ready to take that on for code that has been developed from scratch here and has never been released before? I'm fine if the answer is yes, I'm just more curious as to the thought process, and please feel free to point me at other discussions that I may have missed instead of rehashing here.
Artifact notes:
-----
In the binary, beyond what others have said:
The binary doesn't have LICENSE or NOTICE (the source does, but see below)
I didn't see any instructions on what to do after this, so I stopped looking.
Has someone verified that all the 3rd party libraries bundled are compatible? http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved
---------
Source Distro:
Doing "mvn test" or "mvn install", etc. yields:
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal com.github.igor-petruk.protobuf:protobuf-maven-plugin:0.6.3:run (default) on project common: Cannot execute 'protoc': Cannot run program "protoc": error=2, No such file or directory -> [Help 1]
--------
The NOTICE file is woefully lacking in attributions given the number of dependencies used. Compare with Solr, for instance:https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/trunk/solr/NOTICE.txt. See http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
------
Running Maven Rat (http://creadur.apache.org/rat/apache-rat-plugin/index.html) yields:
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.rat:apache-rat-plugin:0.10:check (default-cli) on project drill-root: Too many files with unapproved license: 97 See RAT report in: /Users/grantingersoll/projects/drill/votes/apache-drill-1.0.0-m1/target/rat.txt -> [Help 1]
[ERROR]
Which means Drill doesn't have license headers, etc. setup correctly.
See the full RAT output at http://paste.apache.org/bEnJ
You can easily run RAT yourself by doing: http://creadur.apache.org/rat/#Apache_Maven and then running: mvn apache-rat:check I would suggest just adding it to the POM so it is always there.
-------
Please see http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
<snip>
Is A Full Copy Of The License Required In Each Source File?
In short, only one copy of the license is needed per distribution. This full license file should be placed at the root of the distribution in a file named LICENSE. For software developed at the ASF, each source file need only contain the boilerplate notice.
Where Is The Right Place For Attribution Notices?
The new license allows for a NOTICE file that contains such attribution notices (including the Apache attribution notice). Read this.
Any attribution notices contained within existing source files should be moved into the file. The NOTICE file must included within the distributed next to the LICENSE file.
Ensure that the standard ASF attribution notice is contained in any new NOTICE file created.
What Content Is Appropriate For The NOTICE File?
Read this.
Only mandatory information required by the product's software licenses. Not suitable for normal documentation.
Is A NOTICE File Required For Pure ASF Code?
Yes! The NOTICE file must contain the standard ASF attribution, given below:
This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
N.B. Unfortunately versions of this document prior to 2013-01-30 (r1440650) were incorrect, as they used the phrase: "developed by" instead of "developed at". The official wording was established in section 6C of the board minutes for May 24 2006
</snip>
On Sep 6, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Please find updated artifacts that include fixes for sample data directory
> and rebuffed-only jars in the binary distribution. Source release should
> be unchanged but should be checked nonetheless.
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jacques/apache-drill-1.0.0-m1.rc3/
>
> Vote for 3 days. Closes Monday, 1:30 Pacific.
>
> Thanks,
> Jacques
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Posted by Ashish <pa...@gmail.com>.
Quick feedback
1. In Readme file, would be great if you can list build dependencies as
bullets (under Quick start section. It's my personal preference, you can
ignore. It makes it easy for reader)
2. After removing sandbox, RAT check still fails, few files have missing
headers including pom.xml. Need to add excludes for .gitignore and other
ignore in pom.xml
3. License file looks fine, you can remove the portion at end after "=="
line. This holds true for source only release, for binary you need to have
additional entries. Lot of project maintain separate file for source and
binary
4. Notice file - Replace "Apache Drill Root POM" with "Apache Drill"
We are good for a source only release with these fixes. Need to spend more
time on binary release. Apache Falcon did something similar, they made a
source only release and are working on making a binary release.
Here is a helpful link http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
Good Luck !
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Ashish <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMHO, I would prefer to focus on following
>
> 1. Fix Header, RAT should run clean
> 2. Fix License, it's painful, but get it's best to get it right first time
> 3. Source only release, which builds fine and test passes fine
>
> This would be good to get the release all the +1's needed.
>
> I will hunt down the Licensing related discussion that we had, to see if I
> can help here. Alternatively, reaching out to incubator general always help
> (sebb is very helpful in fixing this aspect ). I shall try to spend time on
> this in next few hours.
>
> Hopefully, we shall have a release soon :)
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Regarding libs, I concur. The source release does not have jars. I
>> think
>> I may have confused myself by unpacking both into the same place and not
>> properly cleaning in between.
>>
>> Regarding licenses and headers, I don't know the full list. Clearly we
>> need license info about netty since we include that code. Clearly a fair
>> bit of code doesn't have any headers. Removing the sandbox from the
>> source
>> release might be a strong step toward fixing that in the actual release.
>>
>> I suspect that because we keep finding lint that this isn't a complete
>> list
>> of problems. I think that generating a better list of problems by having a
>> small group meet and walk through the (large and confusing) Apache release
>> guide would be helpful.
>>
>> I have asked Grant and Isabel to take a peek and help us get a more
>> complete view of what is needed as well. I may ask somebody else from the
>> incubator crew to give us a hand, especially if Grant and Isabel are tied
>> up.
>>
>> A big part of the problem has to do with the fact that Apache release
>> processes are a bit variable. Another part is that the standards are
>> changing. Another is that there are *lots* of details to be covered.
>>
>> Once this first release is done, a second release should be massively
>> easier. Frankly, the difficulty of the first release is precisely the
>> point of the incubator and the mentor system.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Libs:
>> > The source release doesn't have any jars in it as far as I can tell...
>> >
>> > License Headers/Netty:
>> > Are you saying we need to fix license headers and add a notice for Netty
>> > then do another rc? If so, is there anything else we need to do before
>> I
>> > do the work of another release?
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> > Jacques
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Do we have the list of licenses? Or has someone run RAT?
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > I just ran RAT.
>> > >
>> > > We have lots of files with no license headers.
>> > >
>> > > We also have code with Netty headers which isn't mentioned in the
>> NOTICES
>> > > or LICENSES file.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> thanks
> ashish
>
> Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
>
--
thanks
ashish
Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Posted by Timothy Chen <tn...@gmail.com>.
Downloaded and built the latest tarball, mvn tests passed as well.
+1
Tim
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Lisen Mu <im...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bravo!
>
> by the way, nice logo!
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Ashish <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > IMHO, I would prefer to focus on following
> >
> > 1. Fix Header, RAT should run clean
> > 2. Fix License, it's painful, but get it's best to get it right first
> time
> > 3. Source only release, which builds fine and test passes fine
> >
> > This would be good to get the release all the +1's needed.
> >
> > I will hunt down the Licensing related discussion that we had, to see if
> I
> > can help here. Alternatively, reaching out to incubator general always
> help
> > (sebb is very helpful in fixing this aspect ). I shall try to spend time
> on
> > this in next few hours.
> >
> > Hopefully, we shall have a release soon :)
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Regarding libs, I concur. The source release does not have jars. I
> > think
> > > I may have confused myself by unpacking both into the same place and
> not
> > > properly cleaning in between.
> > >
> > > Regarding licenses and headers, I don't know the full list. Clearly we
> > > need license info about netty since we include that code. Clearly a
> fair
> > > bit of code doesn't have any headers. Removing the sandbox from the
> > source
> > > release might be a strong step toward fixing that in the actual
> release.
> > >
> > > I suspect that because we keep finding lint that this isn't a complete
> > list
> > > of problems. I think that generating a better list of problems by
> having
> > a
> > > small group meet and walk through the (large and confusing) Apache
> > release
> > > guide would be helpful.
> > >
> > > I have asked Grant and Isabel to take a peek and help us get a more
> > > complete view of what is needed as well. I may ask somebody else from
> > the
> > > incubator crew to give us a hand, especially if Grant and Isabel are
> tied
> > > up.
> > >
> > > A big part of the problem has to do with the fact that Apache release
> > > processes are a bit variable. Another part is that the standards are
> > > changing. Another is that there are *lots* of details to be covered.
> > >
> > > Once this first release is done, a second release should be massively
> > > easier. Frankly, the difficulty of the first release is precisely the
> > > point of the incubator and the mentor system.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Libs:
> > > > The source release doesn't have any jars in it as far as I can
> tell...
> > > >
> > > > License Headers/Netty:
> > > > Are you saying we need to fix license headers and add a notice for
> > Netty
> > > > then do another rc? If so, is there anything else we need to do
> > before I
> > > > do the work of another release?
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > > Jacques
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Ted Dunning <
> ted.dunning@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Do we have the list of licenses? Or has someone run RAT?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I just ran RAT.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have lots of files with no license headers.
> > > > >
> > > > > We also have code with Netty headers which isn't mentioned in the
> > > NOTICES
> > > > > or LICENSES file.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > thanks
> > ashish
> >
> > Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> > My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
> >
>
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Posted by Lisen Mu <im...@gmail.com>.
Bravo!
by the way, nice logo!
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Ashish <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMHO, I would prefer to focus on following
>
> 1. Fix Header, RAT should run clean
> 2. Fix License, it's painful, but get it's best to get it right first time
> 3. Source only release, which builds fine and test passes fine
>
> This would be good to get the release all the +1's needed.
>
> I will hunt down the Licensing related discussion that we had, to see if I
> can help here. Alternatively, reaching out to incubator general always help
> (sebb is very helpful in fixing this aspect ). I shall try to spend time on
> this in next few hours.
>
> Hopefully, we shall have a release soon :)
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Regarding libs, I concur. The source release does not have jars. I
> think
> > I may have confused myself by unpacking both into the same place and not
> > properly cleaning in between.
> >
> > Regarding licenses and headers, I don't know the full list. Clearly we
> > need license info about netty since we include that code. Clearly a fair
> > bit of code doesn't have any headers. Removing the sandbox from the
> source
> > release might be a strong step toward fixing that in the actual release.
> >
> > I suspect that because we keep finding lint that this isn't a complete
> list
> > of problems. I think that generating a better list of problems by having
> a
> > small group meet and walk through the (large and confusing) Apache
> release
> > guide would be helpful.
> >
> > I have asked Grant and Isabel to take a peek and help us get a more
> > complete view of what is needed as well. I may ask somebody else from
> the
> > incubator crew to give us a hand, especially if Grant and Isabel are tied
> > up.
> >
> > A big part of the problem has to do with the fact that Apache release
> > processes are a bit variable. Another part is that the standards are
> > changing. Another is that there are *lots* of details to be covered.
> >
> > Once this first release is done, a second release should be massively
> > easier. Frankly, the difficulty of the first release is precisely the
> > point of the incubator and the mentor system.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Libs:
> > > The source release doesn't have any jars in it as far as I can tell...
> > >
> > > License Headers/Netty:
> > > Are you saying we need to fix license headers and add a notice for
> Netty
> > > then do another rc? If so, is there anything else we need to do
> before I
> > > do the work of another release?
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > Jacques
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Do we have the list of licenses? Or has someone run RAT?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I just ran RAT.
> > > >
> > > > We have lots of files with no license headers.
> > > >
> > > > We also have code with Netty headers which isn't mentioned in the
> > NOTICES
> > > > or LICENSES file.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> thanks
> ashish
>
> Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
>
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Posted by Ashish <pa...@gmail.com>.
IMHO, I would prefer to focus on following
1. Fix Header, RAT should run clean
2. Fix License, it's painful, but get it's best to get it right first time
3. Source only release, which builds fine and test passes fine
This would be good to get the release all the +1's needed.
I will hunt down the Licensing related discussion that we had, to see if I
can help here. Alternatively, reaching out to incubator general always help
(sebb is very helpful in fixing this aspect ). I shall try to spend time on
this in next few hours.
Hopefully, we shall have a release soon :)
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding libs, I concur. The source release does not have jars. I think
> I may have confused myself by unpacking both into the same place and not
> properly cleaning in between.
>
> Regarding licenses and headers, I don't know the full list. Clearly we
> need license info about netty since we include that code. Clearly a fair
> bit of code doesn't have any headers. Removing the sandbox from the source
> release might be a strong step toward fixing that in the actual release.
>
> I suspect that because we keep finding lint that this isn't a complete list
> of problems. I think that generating a better list of problems by having a
> small group meet and walk through the (large and confusing) Apache release
> guide would be helpful.
>
> I have asked Grant and Isabel to take a peek and help us get a more
> complete view of what is needed as well. I may ask somebody else from the
> incubator crew to give us a hand, especially if Grant and Isabel are tied
> up.
>
> A big part of the problem has to do with the fact that Apache release
> processes are a bit variable. Another part is that the standards are
> changing. Another is that there are *lots* of details to be covered.
>
> Once this first release is done, a second release should be massively
> easier. Frankly, the difficulty of the first release is precisely the
> point of the incubator and the mentor system.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Libs:
> > The source release doesn't have any jars in it as far as I can tell...
> >
> > License Headers/Netty:
> > Are you saying we need to fix license headers and add a notice for Netty
> > then do another rc? If so, is there anything else we need to do before I
> > do the work of another release?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Jacques
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Do we have the list of licenses? Or has someone run RAT?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I just ran RAT.
> > >
> > > We have lots of files with no license headers.
> > >
> > > We also have code with Netty headers which isn't mentioned in the
> NOTICES
> > > or LICENSES file.
> > >
> >
>
--
thanks
ashish
Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
Sounds good to me. I like it.
On Sep 9, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> * per your question about versioning, the idea behind the milestone
>> versioning was along the following, all working towards a 1.0.0 release:
>> 3-7 milestone releases (we're currently at milestone 1), 1-2 beta releases,
>> GA.
>>
>
> I would like to amplify this point just a bit.
>
> There is a tradition in Apache to start with 0.0 or 0.1 and work up to a
> 1.0 release. The problem here is that the Drill audience is likely to come
> largely from the Hadoop world and in that world, the culture around 0.1
> style versions has been pretty irretrievably poisoned by the multi-year
> kerfuffle about what 1.0 really means. The result has been massive user
> confusion due to non-monotonic release versions and inconsistent planning.
>
> Jacques is trying to appeal more to the JBOSS culture in which releases are
> numbered according to the goal of a release. The goal here is progress
> towards 1.0. The goal here is *not* to make indeterminate process against
> an indeterminate goal.
>
> So the proposed release number that Jacques has suggested here *is* a
> departure from the recent Hadoop and Hadoop related release style, but that
> departure is itself a strong statement that Drill is departing from that
> project style and is focussing on building a viable tool quickly and
> directly.
>
> I certainly can see both sides of this, but I certainly endorse whole
> heartedly the desire to leave behind anything that hints the political
> morass in which other Hadoop related projects have found themselves enmired.
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> * per your question about versioning, the idea behind the milestone
> versioning was along the following, all working towards a 1.0.0 release:
> 3-7 milestone releases (we're currently at milestone 1), 1-2 beta releases,
> GA.
>
I would like to amplify this point just a bit.
There is a tradition in Apache to start with 0.0 or 0.1 and work up to a
1.0 release. The problem here is that the Drill audience is likely to come
largely from the Hadoop world and in that world, the culture around 0.1
style versions has been pretty irretrievably poisoned by the multi-year
kerfuffle about what 1.0 really means. The result has been massive user
confusion due to non-monotonic release versions and inconsistent planning.
Jacques is trying to appeal more to the JBOSS culture in which releases are
numbered according to the goal of a release. The goal here is progress
towards 1.0. The goal here is *not* to make indeterminate process against
an indeterminate goal.
So the proposed release number that Jacques has suggested here *is* a
departure from the recent Hadoop and Hadoop related release style, but that
departure is itself a strong statement that Drill is departing from that
project style and is focussing on building a viable tool quickly and
directly.
I certainly can see both sides of this, but I certainly endorse whole
heartedly the desire to leave behind anything that hints the political
morass in which other Hadoop related projects have found themselves enmired.
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Posted by Jason Altekruse <al...@gmail.com>.
I understand there are still outstanding issues with the licenses and
disclaimers, but just wanted to report a successful build over here. +1
from me once those issues are sorted out.
-Jason
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Grant, Isabel and Ted,
>
> Thanks so much for the feedback. I've filed DRILL- 221-225 to be addressed
> prior to release.
>
> Grant Questions:
> * You're compile failure was due to a lack of the protobuf 2.5.x compiler
> being installed on your build system. I've filed a JIRA to include this
> requirement in the README.
> * per your question about versioning, the idea behind the milestone
> versioning was along the following, all working towards a 1.0.0 release:
> 3-7 milestone releases (we're currently at milestone 1), 1-2 beta releases,
> GA.
>
> Isabel Questions:
> * The next release candidate I post will ensure that the version number
> includes 'incubating'.
> * How were keys signed: via the standard Apache parent pom process.
> * I'll work with Ted to get my key signed.
>
> Please let me know if you think I accurately captured your concerns about
> the source release in the JIRAs. We'll drop the binary release for this
> first release and catch it on the next one.
>
> thanks,
> Jacques
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Isabel Drost-Fromm <isabel@apache.org
> >wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 01:17:45PM -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
> > > I have asked Grant and Isabel to take a peek and help us get a more
> > > complete view of what is needed as well. I may ask somebody else from
> > the
> > > incubator crew to give us a hand, especially if Grant and Isabel are
> tied
> > > up.
> >
> >
> > From a first glance at the release (some points already mentioned by
> > Ted and Grant):
> >
> > As mentioned earlier there are many source files with missing license
> > headers - RAT is a good way for finding those. You might want to check
> > out the Maven Enforcer Plugin or checkstyle for missing license headers,
> > during each build. In addition there's a maven plugin called
> > maven-license-plugin that can automatically add a pre-defined header to
> > all source files at build time (not too sure how well maintained that
> > is right now though).
> >
> > There's some detailed explanation online which files require license
> > header: <http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html> or the incubator
> > version over at
> > <http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice
> >
> >
> > As for the licenses of software the project depends on: Over at Mahout we
> > list which packages we depend on in the NOTICE file. This can be
> > automated via the maven-remote-resources plugin. Note: This information
> > is in the NOTICE file even for the source only release. Maven itself
> seems
> > to be doing this a little different, listing only brief summaries of the
> > dependencies in the NOTICE file and a detailed list in a file named
> > DEPENDENCIES.
> >
> > It looks like the release naming is not quite right - it should contain
> > "incubating" somewhere in the version. See "Naming" section of the
> > incubator
> > release management best practices.
> >
> > Also the release should contain the incubator disclaimer e.g. in the
> > README,
> > Release notes or similar - see "The incubator disclaimer" in the above
> > release management best practices.
> >
> > According to <https://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing> there's also
> > a requirement for an MD5 checksum and a should for a SHA checksum. I'm
> not
> > quite sure though how this plays together with releasing to the Apache
> > nexus with Maven. You might want to dig deeper there:
> > <http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html>
> >
> > When verifying the signature for the source artifact I noticed that the
> > names
> > of the signature and the actual artifact do not quite match. Having them
> > exactly the same exact for the ".asc" suffix makes verification easier/
> > automatic. The maven gpg plugin that is configured in the Apache parent
> pom
> > should do this automatically though. How were the signatures generated?
> >
> > One minor nitpick - you might want to make sure that over time the drill
> > release managers get their gpg keys signed by other Apache people.
> >
> >
> > So overall -1 from my side.
> >
> >
> > Isabel
> >
> >
>
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Posted by Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>.
Grant, Isabel and Ted,
Thanks so much for the feedback. I've filed DRILL- 221-225 to be addressed
prior to release.
Grant Questions:
* You're compile failure was due to a lack of the protobuf 2.5.x compiler
being installed on your build system. I've filed a JIRA to include this
requirement in the README.
* per your question about versioning, the idea behind the milestone
versioning was along the following, all working towards a 1.0.0 release:
3-7 milestone releases (we're currently at milestone 1), 1-2 beta releases,
GA.
Isabel Questions:
* The next release candidate I post will ensure that the version number
includes 'incubating'.
* How were keys signed: via the standard Apache parent pom process.
* I'll work with Ted to get my key signed.
Please let me know if you think I accurately captured your concerns about
the source release in the JIRAs. We'll drop the binary release for this
first release and catch it on the next one.
thanks,
Jacques
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Isabel Drost-Fromm <is...@apache.org>wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 01:17:45PM -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
> > I have asked Grant and Isabel to take a peek and help us get a more
> > complete view of what is needed as well. I may ask somebody else from
> the
> > incubator crew to give us a hand, especially if Grant and Isabel are tied
> > up.
>
>
> From a first glance at the release (some points already mentioned by
> Ted and Grant):
>
> As mentioned earlier there are many source files with missing license
> headers - RAT is a good way for finding those. You might want to check
> out the Maven Enforcer Plugin or checkstyle for missing license headers,
> during each build. In addition there's a maven plugin called
> maven-license-plugin that can automatically add a pre-defined header to
> all source files at build time (not too sure how well maintained that
> is right now though).
>
> There's some detailed explanation online which files require license
> header: <http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html> or the incubator
> version over at
> <http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice>
>
> As for the licenses of software the project depends on: Over at Mahout we
> list which packages we depend on in the NOTICE file. This can be
> automated via the maven-remote-resources plugin. Note: This information
> is in the NOTICE file even for the source only release. Maven itself seems
> to be doing this a little different, listing only brief summaries of the
> dependencies in the NOTICE file and a detailed list in a file named
> DEPENDENCIES.
>
> It looks like the release naming is not quite right - it should contain
> "incubating" somewhere in the version. See "Naming" section of the
> incubator
> release management best practices.
>
> Also the release should contain the incubator disclaimer e.g. in the
> README,
> Release notes or similar - see "The incubator disclaimer" in the above
> release management best practices.
>
> According to <https://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing> there's also
> a requirement for an MD5 checksum and a should for a SHA checksum. I'm not
> quite sure though how this plays together with releasing to the Apache
> nexus with Maven. You might want to dig deeper there:
> <http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html>
>
> When verifying the signature for the source artifact I noticed that the
> names
> of the signature and the actual artifact do not quite match. Having them
> exactly the same exact for the ".asc" suffix makes verification easier/
> automatic. The maven gpg plugin that is configured in the Apache parent pom
> should do this automatically though. How were the signatures generated?
>
> One minor nitpick - you might want to make sure that over time the drill
> release managers get their gpg keys signed by other Apache people.
>
>
> So overall -1 from my side.
>
>
> Isabel
>
>
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Posted by Isabel Drost-Fromm <is...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 01:17:45PM -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
> I have asked Grant and Isabel to take a peek and help us get a more
> complete view of what is needed as well. I may ask somebody else from the
> incubator crew to give us a hand, especially if Grant and Isabel are tied
> up.
>From a first glance at the release (some points already mentioned by
Ted and Grant):
As mentioned earlier there are many source files with missing license
headers - RAT is a good way for finding those. You might want to check
out the Maven Enforcer Plugin or checkstyle for missing license headers,
during each build. In addition there's a maven plugin called
maven-license-plugin that can automatically add a pre-defined header to
all source files at build time (not too sure how well maintained that
is right now though).
There's some detailed explanation online which files require license
header: <http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html> or the incubator
version over at
<http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice>
As for the licenses of software the project depends on: Over at Mahout we
list which packages we depend on in the NOTICE file. This can be
automated via the maven-remote-resources plugin. Note: This information
is in the NOTICE file even for the source only release. Maven itself seems
to be doing this a little different, listing only brief summaries of the
dependencies in the NOTICE file and a detailed list in a file named
DEPENDENCIES.
It looks like the release naming is not quite right - it should contain
"incubating" somewhere in the version. See "Naming" section of the incubator
release management best practices.
Also the release should contain the incubator disclaimer e.g. in the README,
Release notes or similar - see "The incubator disclaimer" in the above
release management best practices.
According to <https://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing> there's also
a requirement for an MD5 checksum and a should for a SHA checksum. I'm not
quite sure though how this plays together with releasing to the Apache
nexus with Maven. You might want to dig deeper there:
<http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html>
When verifying the signature for the source artifact I noticed that the names
of the signature and the actual artifact do not quite match. Having them
exactly the same exact for the ".asc" suffix makes verification easier/
automatic. The maven gpg plugin that is configured in the Apache parent pom
should do this automatically though. How were the signatures generated?
One minor nitpick - you might want to make sure that over time the drill
release managers get their gpg keys signed by other Apache people.
So overall -1 from my side.
Isabel
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Regarding libs, I concur. The source release does not have jars. I think
I may have confused myself by unpacking both into the same place and not
properly cleaning in between.
Regarding licenses and headers, I don't know the full list. Clearly we
need license info about netty since we include that code. Clearly a fair
bit of code doesn't have any headers. Removing the sandbox from the source
release might be a strong step toward fixing that in the actual release.
I suspect that because we keep finding lint that this isn't a complete list
of problems. I think that generating a better list of problems by having a
small group meet and walk through the (large and confusing) Apache release
guide would be helpful.
I have asked Grant and Isabel to take a peek and help us get a more
complete view of what is needed as well. I may ask somebody else from the
incubator crew to give us a hand, especially if Grant and Isabel are tied
up.
A big part of the problem has to do with the fact that Apache release
processes are a bit variable. Another part is that the standards are
changing. Another is that there are *lots* of details to be covered.
Once this first release is done, a second release should be massively
easier. Frankly, the difficulty of the first release is precisely the
point of the incubator and the mentor system.
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Libs:
> The source release doesn't have any jars in it as far as I can tell...
>
> License Headers/Netty:
> Are you saying we need to fix license headers and add a notice for Netty
> then do another rc? If so, is there anything else we need to do before I
> do the work of another release?
>
> thanks,
> Jacques
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Do we have the list of licenses? Or has someone run RAT?
> > >
> >
> > I just ran RAT.
> >
> > We have lots of files with no license headers.
> >
> > We also have code with Netty headers which isn't mentioned in the NOTICES
> > or LICENSES file.
> >
>
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Posted by Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>.
Libs:
The source release doesn't have any jars in it as far as I can tell...
License Headers/Netty:
Are you saying we need to fix license headers and add a notice for Netty
then do another rc? If so, is there anything else we need to do before I
do the work of another release?
thanks,
Jacques
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Do we have the list of licenses? Or has someone run RAT?
> >
>
> I just ran RAT.
>
> We have lots of files with no license headers.
>
> We also have code with Netty headers which isn't mentioned in the NOTICES
> or LICENSES file.
>
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do we have the list of licenses? Or has someone run RAT?
>
I just ran RAT.
We have lots of files with no license headers.
We also have code with Netty headers which isn't mentioned in the NOTICES
or LICENSES file.
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Let's just exclude the binary for this release. It isn't required for
> Apache and we can get right for next time. The targets are there for
> those who want them.
>
Good idea.
> Additionally, the source distro doesn't directly distribute any other
> dependencies so we should be okay there.
>
The source tarball has a lib directory in it with 130 jars in it.
> Sounds like we just need SHA and MD5 checksums. Or am oversimplifying?
>
The license file is missing the list of dependency licenses, but based on
examination of the Mahout license file, I think that is OK if we don't
actually include these objects in the release. Any binary artifact will
obviously need the list.
Do we have the list of licenses? Or has someone run RAT?
> J
> On Sep 7, 2013 9:38 PM, "Ted Dunning" <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hmm... I read through some of the release guidelines [1].
> >
> > These include requirements like
> >
> >
> > - LICENSE file should include info about all included software. Our
> > LICENSE file only has the Apache license in it, followed by a
> statement
> > that there will be a list, but the list is absent. The binary
> > distribution
> > completely lacks a LICENSE file.
> > - different package types should unpack into different directories.
> > Currently, both source and binary unpack into the same directory
> > - our NOTICE file doesn't contain notices from our dependencies
> > - must include SHA and MD5 checksums as well as a signature
> >
> >
> > Note that after we get a solid release here, there will have to be
> another
> > vote by the Incubator PMC to let the release go public. Since this is
> our
> > first release, they will likely be kind of stringent to get the process
> > going cleanly.
> >
> >
> > 1) http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I downloaded all the artifacts and check signatures. All verified.
> > >
> > > I unpacked both binary and source tar balls. Both unpacked cleanly.
> > >
> > > I ran all of the HOWTO queries on the binary distro. Sample data is
> > > present. All queries worked except for the typo on the wiki page the
> > Harri
> > > found. I fixed the wiki page. I still get the permission error on
> > > /var/logs.
> > >
> > > I compiled the source distro without tests. That went cleanly.
> > >
> > > I ran the resulting binary on one of the HOWTO queries. That worked.
> > >
> > >
> > > What I didn't do:
> > >
> > > - Didn't check the zip version
> > > - Didn't run the unit tests
> > > - Didn't step through any more advanced tests
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I say
> > >
> > > +1. Ship it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hello,
> > >>
> > >> Please find updated artifacts that include fixes for sample data
> > directory
> > >> and rebuffed-only jars in the binary distribution. Source release
> > should
> > >> be unchanged but should be checked nonetheless.
> > >>
> > >> http://people.apache.org/~jacques/apache-drill-1.0.0-m1.rc3/
> > >>
> > >> Vote for 3 days. Closes Monday, 1:30 Pacific.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Jacques
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Posted by Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>.
Let's just exclude the binary for this release. It isn't required for
Apache and we can get right for next time. The targets are there for
those who want them.
Additionally, the source distro doesn't directly distribute any other
dependencies so we should be okay there.
Sounds like we just need SHA and MD5 checksums. Or am oversimplifying?
J
On Sep 7, 2013 9:38 PM, "Ted Dunning" <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm... I read through some of the release guidelines [1].
>
> These include requirements like
>
>
> - LICENSE file should include info about all included software. Our
> LICENSE file only has the Apache license in it, followed by a statement
> that there will be a list, but the list is absent. The binary
> distribution
> completely lacks a LICENSE file.
> - different package types should unpack into different directories.
> Currently, both source and binary unpack into the same directory
> - our NOTICE file doesn't contain notices from our dependencies
> - must include SHA and MD5 checksums as well as a signature
>
>
> Note that after we get a solid release here, there will have to be another
> vote by the Incubator PMC to let the release go public. Since this is our
> first release, they will likely be kind of stringent to get the process
> going cleanly.
>
>
> 1) http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I downloaded all the artifacts and check signatures. All verified.
> >
> > I unpacked both binary and source tar balls. Both unpacked cleanly.
> >
> > I ran all of the HOWTO queries on the binary distro. Sample data is
> > present. All queries worked except for the typo on the wiki page the
> Harri
> > found. I fixed the wiki page. I still get the permission error on
> > /var/logs.
> >
> > I compiled the source distro without tests. That went cleanly.
> >
> > I ran the resulting binary on one of the HOWTO queries. That worked.
> >
> >
> > What I didn't do:
> >
> > - Didn't check the zip version
> > - Didn't run the unit tests
> > - Didn't step through any more advanced tests
> >
> >
> >
> > I say
> >
> > +1. Ship it.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> Please find updated artifacts that include fixes for sample data
> directory
> >> and rebuffed-only jars in the binary distribution. Source release
> should
> >> be unchanged but should be checked nonetheless.
> >>
> >> http://people.apache.org/~jacques/apache-drill-1.0.0-m1.rc3/
> >>
> >> Vote for 3 days. Closes Monday, 1:30 Pacific.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Jacques
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Hmm... I read through some of the release guidelines [1].
These include requirements like
- LICENSE file should include info about all included software. Our
LICENSE file only has the Apache license in it, followed by a statement
that there will be a list, but the list is absent. The binary distribution
completely lacks a LICENSE file.
- different package types should unpack into different directories.
Currently, both source and binary unpack into the same directory
- our NOTICE file doesn't contain notices from our dependencies
- must include SHA and MD5 checksums as well as a signature
Note that after we get a solid release here, there will have to be another
vote by the Incubator PMC to let the release go public. Since this is our
first release, they will likely be kind of stringent to get the process
going cleanly.
1) http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I downloaded all the artifacts and check signatures. All verified.
>
> I unpacked both binary and source tar balls. Both unpacked cleanly.
>
> I ran all of the HOWTO queries on the binary distro. Sample data is
> present. All queries worked except for the typo on the wiki page the Harri
> found. I fixed the wiki page. I still get the permission error on
> /var/logs.
>
> I compiled the source distro without tests. That went cleanly.
>
> I ran the resulting binary on one of the HOWTO queries. That worked.
>
>
> What I didn't do:
>
> - Didn't check the zip version
> - Didn't run the unit tests
> - Didn't step through any more advanced tests
>
>
>
> I say
>
> +1. Ship it.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Please find updated artifacts that include fixes for sample data directory
>> and rebuffed-only jars in the binary distribution. Source release should
>> be unchanged but should be checked nonetheless.
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~jacques/apache-drill-1.0.0-m1.rc3/
>>
>> Vote for 3 days. Closes Monday, 1:30 Pacific.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jacques
>>
>
>
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
I downloaded all the artifacts and check signatures. All verified.
I unpacked both binary and source tar balls. Both unpacked cleanly.
I ran all of the HOWTO queries on the binary distro. Sample data is
present. All queries worked except for the typo on the wiki page the Harri
found. I fixed the wiki page. I still get the permission error on
/var/logs.
I compiled the source distro without tests. That went cleanly.
I ran the resulting binary on one of the HOWTO queries. That worked.
What I didn't do:
- Didn't check the zip version
- Didn't run the unit tests
- Didn't step through any more advanced tests
I say
+1. Ship it.
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Please find updated artifacts that include fixes for sample data directory
> and rebuffed-only jars in the binary distribution. Source release should
> be unchanged but should be checked nonetheless.
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jacques/apache-drill-1.0.0-m1.rc3/
>
> Vote for 3 days. Closes Monday, 1:30 Pacific.
>
> Thanks,
> Jacques
>
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
There are more sample queries on the HOWTO doc.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Michael Hausenblas <
> michael.hausenblas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> * We should document how to exit sqlline—this one is rather annoying
>> (standard stuff like exit; or quit; or CTRL+C doesn't seem to work and
>> CTRL+D kills my terminal)
>>
>
> Ctrl-D works for me.
>
>
>> * A JSON example data file seems to be missing in sample-data/
>>
>
> I prefer to focus on the parquet files, but adding a JSON example file is
> probably good from the stand point of flexibility demo.
>
>
>> * I created a JSON doc in sample-data/ as seen in
>> https://github.com/vrtx/incubator-drill/blob/getting_started/docs/getting_started.rstand that resulted in:
>>
>
> The query needs a storage type. Try:
>
> select _MAP['name'] from "jsonl"."sample-data/test-0.json";
>
>
>
>>
>> 0: jdbc:drill:schema=json> SELECT _MAP['name'], _MAP['age'] FROM
>> "sample-data/test-0.json";
>> Sep 10, 2013 2:48:30 PM org.eigenbase.sql.validate.SqlValidatorException
>> <init>
>> SEVERE: org.eigenbase.sql.validate.SqlValidatorException: Table
>> 'sample-data/test-0.json' not found
>> Sep 10, 2013 2:48:30 PM org.eigenbase.util.EigenbaseException <init>
>>
>> BTW, I'll give a live demo in two days time in Stockholm, see
>> http://www.meetup.com/stockholm-hug/events/129201812/ and will share the
>> slides, afterwards.
>>
>
> Record a talk track if you can.
>
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Harri Kinnunen
<Ha...@hitsaamo.fi>wrote:
> I'll update the Wiki How-To.
>
Good man!
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Posted by Harri Kinnunen <Ha...@hitsaamo.fi>.
It's "!quit" to quit sqlline.
I'll update the Wiki How-To.
Cheers,
-Harri
On 10.9.2013, at 18.58, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Michael Hausenblas <
> michael.hausenblas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> * We should document how to exit sqlline—this one is rather annoying
>> (standard stuff like exit; or quit; or CTRL+C doesn't seem to work and
>> CTRL+D kills my terminal)
>>
>
> Ctrl-D works for me.
>
>
>> * A JSON example data file seems to be missing in sample-data/
>>
>
> I prefer to focus on the parquet files, but adding a JSON example file is
> probably good from the stand point of flexibility demo.
>
>
>> * I created a JSON doc in sample-data/ as seen in
>> https://github.com/vrtx/incubator-drill/blob/getting_started/docs/getting_started.rstand that resulted in:
>>
>
> The query needs a storage type. Try:
>
> select _MAP['name'] from "jsonl"."sample-data/test-0.json";
>
>
>
>>
>> 0: jdbc:drill:schema=json> SELECT _MAP['name'], _MAP['age'] FROM
>> "sample-data/test-0.json";
>> Sep 10, 2013 2:48:30 PM org.eigenbase.sql.validate.SqlValidatorException
>> <init>
>> SEVERE: org.eigenbase.sql.validate.SqlValidatorException: Table
>> 'sample-data/test-0.json' not found
>> Sep 10, 2013 2:48:30 PM org.eigenbase.util.EigenbaseException <init>
>>
>> BTW, I'll give a live demo in two days time in Stockholm, see
>> http://www.meetup.com/stockholm-hug/events/129201812/ and will share the
>> slides, afterwards.
>>
>
> Record a talk track if you can.
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Michael Hausenblas <
michael.hausenblas@gmail.com> wrote:
> * We should document how to exit sqlline—this one is rather annoying
> (standard stuff like exit; or quit; or CTRL+C doesn't seem to work and
> CTRL+D kills my terminal)
>
Ctrl-D works for me.
> * A JSON example data file seems to be missing in sample-data/
>
I prefer to focus on the parquet files, but adding a JSON example file is
probably good from the stand point of flexibility demo.
> * I created a JSON doc in sample-data/ as seen in
> https://github.com/vrtx/incubator-drill/blob/getting_started/docs/getting_started.rstand that resulted in:
>
The query needs a storage type. Try:
select _MAP['name'] from "jsonl"."sample-data/test-0.json";
>
> 0: jdbc:drill:schema=json> SELECT _MAP['name'], _MAP['age'] FROM
> "sample-data/test-0.json";
> Sep 10, 2013 2:48:30 PM org.eigenbase.sql.validate.SqlValidatorException
> <init>
> SEVERE: org.eigenbase.sql.validate.SqlValidatorException: Table
> 'sample-data/test-0.json' not found
> Sep 10, 2013 2:48:30 PM org.eigenbase.util.EigenbaseException <init>
>
> BTW, I'll give a live demo in two days time in Stockholm, see
> http://www.meetup.com/stockholm-hug/events/129201812/ and will share the
> slides, afterwards.
>
Record a talk track if you can.
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Posted by Michael Hausenblas <mi...@gmail.com>.
I essentially followed https://github.com/vrtx/incubator-drill/blob/getting_started/docs/getting_started.rst using apache-drill-1.0.0-m1.rc3 on MacOS 10.8.4.
All seems to work. I did notice the slightly strange noise Lilith makes when you have a syntax error ;)
Here are my observations:
* I had to do an 'export DRILL_LOG_DIR=$PWD' as /var/log seems not to be write-able per default on MacOS
* We should document how to exit sqlline—this one is rather annoying (standard stuff like exit; or quit; or CTRL+C doesn't seem to work and CTRL+D kills my terminal)
* A JSON example data file seems to be missing in sample-data/
* I created a JSON doc in sample-data/ as seen in https://github.com/vrtx/incubator-drill/blob/getting_started/docs/getting_started.rst and that resulted in:
0: jdbc:drill:schema=json> SELECT _MAP['name'], _MAP['age'] FROM "sample-data/test-0.json";
Sep 10, 2013 2:48:30 PM org.eigenbase.sql.validate.SqlValidatorException <init>
SEVERE: org.eigenbase.sql.validate.SqlValidatorException: Table 'sample-data/test-0.json' not found
Sep 10, 2013 2:48:30 PM org.eigenbase.util.EigenbaseException <init>
BTW, I'll give a live demo in two days time in Stockholm, see http://www.meetup.com/stockholm-hug/events/129201812/ and will share the slides, afterwards.
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Hausenblas
Ireland, Europe
http://mhausenblas.info/
On 6 Sep 2013, at 21:11, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Please find updated artifacts that include fixes for sample data directory
> and rebuffed-only jars in the binary distribution. Source release should
> be unchanged but should be checked nonetheless.
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jacques/apache-drill-1.0.0-m1.rc3/
>
> Vote for 3 days. Closes Monday, 1:30 Pacific.
>
> Thanks,
> Jacques