You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@accumulo.apache.org by Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> on 2016/06/14 19:28:30 UTC
[VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.2-rc1
Accumulo Developers,
Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo 1.7.2.
All content generated via
assemble/build.sh --create-release-candidate -P '!thrift'
Git Commit:
a49291b8aa85b81650f2b79f80b400e10b594795
Branch:
1.7.2-rc1
If this vote passes, a gpg-signed tag will be created using:
git tag -f -m 'Apache Accumulo 1.7.2' -s rel/1.7.2
a49291b8aa85b81650f2b79f80b400e10b594795
Staging repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051
Source (official release artifact):
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.2/accumulo-1.7.2-src.tar.gz
Binary:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.2/accumulo-1.7.2-bin.tar.gz
(Append ".sha1", ".md5", or ".asc" to download the signature/hash for a
given artifact.)
All artifacts were built and staged with:
mvn release:prepare && mvn release:perform
Signing keys are available at https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS
(Expected fingerprint: 6A90F817481A73C1C419B62D8F2F220786C4FB2A
86EDB9C33B8517228E88A8F93E48C0C6EF362B9E)
Release notes (in progress) can be found at:
https://accumulo.apache.org/release_notes/1.7.2
Please vote one of:
[ ] +1 - I have verified and accept...
[ ] +0 - I have reservations, but not strong enough to vote against...
[ ] -1 - Because..., I do not accept...
... these artifacts as the 1.7.2 release of Apache Accumulo.
This vote will end on Fri Jun 17 19:30:00 UTC 2016
(Fri Jun 17 15:30:00 EDT 2016 / Fri Jun 17 12:30:00 PDT 2016)
Thanks!
P.S. Hint: download the whole staging repo with
wget -erobots=off -r -l inf -np -nH \
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/
# note the trailing slash is needed
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.2-rc1
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 22:18 Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sean, I noticed you committed the change you wanted to the LICENSE files,
> > in spite of my reference here indicating (more or less definitively) that
> > it wasn't actually necessary. The change itself doesn't bother me all
> that
> > much, but the fact that you proceeded while appearing to ignore my
> response
> > at this point in the conversation does.
> >
> > I'd preferred you'd have at least made an attempt convince me that it was
> > still a good idea, even if it wasn't actually necessary. I don't think it
> > would have taken much to convince me (I wasn't strongly opposed), but the
> > fact that you didn't try, kinda makes me feel like you were going to do
> > what you wanted, regardless, and didn't actually care about the community
> > discussion. That doesn't sit well with me.
> >
> > If my impression does not match your intent, please forgive me for
> > attributing false intentions. I can only describe my perspective.
>
>
> My apologies Christopher, I think we just missed each other here. I
> try to isolate
> my email use when there's coding to do in an effort to stay productive.
> Once
> there were JIRAs posted I presumed anyone with strong feelings would show
> up
> on them to discuss the changes in order to avoid clogging up the VOTE
> thread.
>
> Since I had a limited window of time to work on things and I knew Mike was
> going to want to spin a new RC this evening I pushed forward once any
> issues
> brought up on the JIRAs were addressed. Please take a few minutes to read
> through things on ACCUMULO-4346 and feel free to reopen it if you'd like to
> discuss additional changes; I believe Mike brought up the issue of
> referencing
> a specific file instead of including the text.
>
>
> --
> busbey
>
Okay. That's fair. I just wanted to make sure that the ongoing community
discussion wasn't intentionally being brushed aside in favor of a
unilateral perspective. Thanks for explaining. I was a bit sensitive and
moody earlier and was prone to misinterpreting the situation, and apologize
again, because I clearly did misinterpret.
>
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.2-rc1
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> Sean, I noticed you committed the change you wanted to the LICENSE files,
> in spite of my reference here indicating (more or less definitively) that
> it wasn't actually necessary. The change itself doesn't bother me all that
> much, but the fact that you proceeded while appearing to ignore my response
> at this point in the conversation does.
>
> I'd preferred you'd have at least made an attempt convince me that it was
> still a good idea, even if it wasn't actually necessary. I don't think it
> would have taken much to convince me (I wasn't strongly opposed), but the
> fact that you didn't try, kinda makes me feel like you were going to do
> what you wanted, regardless, and didn't actually care about the community
> discussion. That doesn't sit well with me.
>
> If my impression does not match your intent, please forgive me for
> attributing false intentions. I can only describe my perspective.
My apologies Christopher, I think we just missed each other here. I
try to isolate
my email use when there's coding to do in an effort to stay productive. Once
there were JIRAs posted I presumed anyone with strong feelings would show up
on them to discuss the changes in order to avoid clogging up the VOTE thread.
Since I had a limited window of time to work on things and I knew Mike was
going to want to spin a new RC this evening I pushed forward once any issues
brought up on the JIRAs were addressed. Please take a few minutes to read
through things on ACCUMULO-4346 and feel free to reopen it if you'd like to
discuss additional changes; I believe Mike brought up the issue of referencing
a specific file instead of including the text.
--
busbey
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.2-rc1
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:30 PM Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:28 PM Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Mike Drob wrote:
>> > Thanks for taking a look, Sean.
>> >
>> > The LICENSE file in the source tarball refers to the BSD license and
>> > includes "for details see
>> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/bloomfilter" and all files
>> > there (BloomFilter.java, DynamicBloomFilter.java, and Filter.java)
>> include
>> > the full 3-Clause BSD license in the header. Similarly, the MIT clause
>> has
>> > "for details see server/monitor/src/main/resources/web/flot" which has a
>> > LICENSE.txt
>>
>> I have absolutely no idea if this is "sufficient" or not. I can
>> understand Sean's confusion in not seeing relevant licenses in the
>> LICENSE file.
>>
>>
> According to http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-file,
> the license details must be included, but a pointer in the LICENSE file to
> those details elsewhere in the distribution is sufficient.
>
Sean, I noticed you committed the change you wanted to the LICENSE files,
in spite of my reference here indicating (more or less definitively) that
it wasn't actually necessary. The change itself doesn't bother me all that
much, but the fact that you proceeded while appearing to ignore my response
at this point in the conversation does.
I'd preferred you'd have at least made an attempt convince me that it was
still a good idea, even if it wasn't actually necessary. I don't think it
would have taken much to convince me (I wasn't strongly opposed), but the
fact that you didn't try, kinda makes me feel like you were going to do
what you wanted, regardless, and didn't actually care about the community
discussion. That doesn't sit well with me.
If my impression does not match your intent, please forgive me for
attributing false intentions. I can only describe my perspective.
>
>
>> > Regarding the crypto, according towww.apache.org/dev/crypto.html#inform
>> it
>> > looks like we need to place that disclaimer in the README and not the
>> > NOTICE file anyway. If you prefer this reading of the policy, can you
>> file
>> > a JIRA for making these changes and set it as a blocker? Thanks.
>>
>> Yeah, NOTICE is not the right place for this, AFAIU. I wouldn't think
>> this is a blocker, but something we should just remove from the
>> src-release's NOTICE file.
>>
>>
> Agreed. There are other superfluous stuffs in our NOTICE files which
> should also be removed (notices about inclusion of other ASF projects, for
> example; only transitive notices should be carried forward from these
> dependencies; the ASF project itself is satisfied by the catch-all notice
> line about including software developed at ASF).
>
> I think these are wrong (
> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice : "Do not add
> anything to NOTICE which is not legally required."), but also not a
> blocker.
>
>
>> > Mike
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Sean Busbey<bu...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > -1
>> >> >
>> >> > good:
>> >> >
>> >> > * verified checksums and signatures
>> >> > * source artifact corresponds to referenced commit
>> >> > * source builds correctly with Oracle JDK 1.7.0_80 / Apache Maven
>> >> > 3.3.9 (including unit tests, not including ITs)
>> >> >
>> >> > bad:
>> >> >
>> >> > * LICENSE in source tarball references the "3 clause BSD" and "MIT"
>> >> > licenses but does not provide their text or a pointer to where the
>> >> > text can be found in the artifact.
>> >> > * NOTICE in the binary tarball doesn't include any of the encryption
>> >> > notice stuff that's in the source tarball NOTICE (I don't know if
>> this
>> >> > information is required in the NOTICE file, but it seems like we
>> >> > should be consistent for things that are equally applicable in the
>> >> > two).
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.2-rc1
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:28 PM Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Mike Drob wrote:
> > Thanks for taking a look, Sean.
> >
> > The LICENSE file in the source tarball refers to the BSD license and
> > includes "for details see
> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/bloomfilter" and all files
> > there (BloomFilter.java, DynamicBloomFilter.java, and Filter.java)
> include
> > the full 3-Clause BSD license in the header. Similarly, the MIT clause
> has
> > "for details see server/monitor/src/main/resources/web/flot" which has a
> > LICENSE.txt
>
> I have absolutely no idea if this is "sufficient" or not. I can
> understand Sean's confusion in not seeing relevant licenses in the
> LICENSE file.
>
>
According to http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-file,
the license details must be included, but a pointer in the LICENSE file to
those details elsewhere in the distribution is sufficient.
> > Regarding the crypto, according towww.apache.org/dev/crypto.html#inform
> it
> > looks like we need to place that disclaimer in the README and not the
> > NOTICE file anyway. If you prefer this reading of the policy, can you
> file
> > a JIRA for making these changes and set it as a blocker? Thanks.
>
> Yeah, NOTICE is not the right place for this, AFAIU. I wouldn't think
> this is a blocker, but something we should just remove from the
> src-release's NOTICE file.
>
>
Agreed. There are other superfluous stuffs in our NOTICE files which should
also be removed (notices about inclusion of other ASF projects, for
example; only transitive notices should be carried forward from these
dependencies; the ASF project itself is satisfied by the catch-all notice
line about including software developed at ASF).
I think these are wrong (
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice : "Do not add
anything to NOTICE which is not legally required."), but also not a blocker.
> > Mike
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Sean Busbey<bu...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> > -1
> >> >
> >> > good:
> >> >
> >> > * verified checksums and signatures
> >> > * source artifact corresponds to referenced commit
> >> > * source builds correctly with Oracle JDK 1.7.0_80 / Apache Maven
> >> > 3.3.9 (including unit tests, not including ITs)
> >> >
> >> > bad:
> >> >
> >> > * LICENSE in source tarball references the "3 clause BSD" and "MIT"
> >> > licenses but does not provide their text or a pointer to where the
> >> > text can be found in the artifact.
> >> > * NOTICE in the binary tarball doesn't include any of the encryption
> >> > notice stuff that's in the source tarball NOTICE (I don't know if
> this
> >> > information is required in the NOTICE file, but it seems like we
> >> > should be consistent for things that are equally applicable in the
> >> > two).
>
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.2-rc1
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'll file JIRAs for both issues, but the first one is still a blocker
> for me, though I can understand why other folks might still vote +1.
FYI, patches for both issues are now up on ACCUMULO-4346 and ACCUMULO-4347
--
busbey
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.2-rc1
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Mike Drob wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for taking a look, Sean.
>>
>> The LICENSE file in the source tarball refers to the BSD license and
>> includes "for details see
>> core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/bloomfilter" and all files
>> there (BloomFilter.java, DynamicBloomFilter.java, and Filter.java) include
>> the full 3-Clause BSD license in the header. Similarly, the MIT clause has
>> "for details see server/monitor/src/main/resources/web/flot" which has a
>> LICENSE.txt
>
>
> I have absolutely no idea if this is "sufficient" or not. I can understand
> Sean's confusion in not seeing relevant licenses in the LICENSE file.
My reading of the asf release policy on licensing is that folks
shouldn't have to dig to find the relevant materials.
"start here" is not a pointer to a specific file with the relevant
text, which is the only option for not including directly in the
LICENSE file I've seen expressly stated as acceptable in the past.
>
>> Regarding the crypto, according towww.apache.org/dev/crypto.html#inform
>> it
>> looks like we need to place that disclaimer in the README and not the
>> NOTICE file anyway. If you prefer this reading of the policy, can you file
>> a JIRA for making these changes and set it as a blocker? Thanks.
>
>
> Yeah, NOTICE is not the right place for this, AFAIU. I wouldn't think this
> is a blocker, but something we should just remove from the src-release's
> NOTICE file.
>
Agreed that this should get fixed but need not be a blocker.
I'll file JIRAs for both issues, but the first one is still a blocker
for me, though I can understand why other folks might still vote +1.
--
busbey
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.2-rc1
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
Mike Drob wrote:
> Thanks for taking a look, Sean.
>
> The LICENSE file in the source tarball refers to the BSD license and
> includes "for details see
> core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/bloomfilter" and all files
> there (BloomFilter.java, DynamicBloomFilter.java, and Filter.java) include
> the full 3-Clause BSD license in the header. Similarly, the MIT clause has
> "for details see server/monitor/src/main/resources/web/flot" which has a
> LICENSE.txt
I have absolutely no idea if this is "sufficient" or not. I can
understand Sean's confusion in not seeing relevant licenses in the
LICENSE file.
> Regarding the crypto, according towww.apache.org/dev/crypto.html#inform it
> looks like we need to place that disclaimer in the README and not the
> NOTICE file anyway. If you prefer this reading of the policy, can you file
> a JIRA for making these changes and set it as a blocker? Thanks.
Yeah, NOTICE is not the right place for this, AFAIU. I wouldn't think
this is a blocker, but something we should just remove from the
src-release's NOTICE file.
> Mike
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Sean Busbey<bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> > -1
>> >
>> > good:
>> >
>> > * verified checksums and signatures
>> > * source artifact corresponds to referenced commit
>> > * source builds correctly with Oracle JDK 1.7.0_80 / Apache Maven
>> > 3.3.9 (including unit tests, not including ITs)
>> >
>> > bad:
>> >
>> > * LICENSE in source tarball references the "3 clause BSD" and "MIT"
>> > licenses but does not provide their text or a pointer to where the
>> > text can be found in the artifact.
>> > * NOTICE in the binary tarball doesn't include any of the encryption
>> > notice stuff that's in the source tarball NOTICE (I don't know if this
>> > information is required in the NOTICE file, but it seems like we
>> > should be consistent for things that are equally applicable in the
>> > two).
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.2-rc1
Posted by Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com>.
Thanks for taking a look, Sean.
The LICENSE file in the source tarball refers to the BSD license and
includes "for details see
core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/bloomfilter" and all files
there (BloomFilter.java, DynamicBloomFilter.java, and Filter.java) include
the full 3-Clause BSD license in the header. Similarly, the MIT clause has
"for details see server/monitor/src/main/resources/web/flot" which has a
LICENSE.txt
Regarding the crypto, according to www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html#inform it
looks like we need to place that disclaimer in the README and not the
NOTICE file anyway. If you prefer this reading of the policy, can you file
a JIRA for making these changes and set it as a blocker? Thanks.
Mike
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> -1
>
> good:
>
> * verified checksums and signatures
> * source artifact corresponds to referenced commit
> * source builds correctly with Oracle JDK 1.7.0_80 / Apache Maven
> 3.3.9 (including unit tests, not including ITs)
>
> bad:
>
> * LICENSE in source tarball references the "3 clause BSD" and "MIT"
> licenses but does not provide their text or a pointer to where the
> text can be found in the artifact.
> * NOTICE in the binary tarball doesn't include any of the encryption
> notice stuff that's in the source tarball NOTICE (I don't know if this
> information is required in the NOTICE file, but it seems like we
> should be consistent for things that are equally applicable in the
> two).
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
> > Accumulo Developers,
> >
> > Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo 1.7.2.
> >
> > All content generated via
> > assemble/build.sh --create-release-candidate -P '!thrift'
> >
> > Git Commit:
> > a49291b8aa85b81650f2b79f80b400e10b594795
> > Branch:
> > 1.7.2-rc1
> >
> > If this vote passes, a gpg-signed tag will be created using:
> > git tag -f -m 'Apache Accumulo 1.7.2' -s rel/1.7.2
> > a49291b8aa85b81650f2b79f80b400e10b594795
> >
> > Staging repo:
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051
> > Source (official release artifact):
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.2/accumulo-1.7.2-src.tar.gz
> > Binary:
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.2/accumulo-1.7.2-bin.tar.gz
> > (Append ".sha1", ".md5", or ".asc" to download the signature/hash for a
> > given artifact.)
> >
> > All artifacts were built and staged with:
> > mvn release:prepare && mvn release:perform
> >
> > Signing keys are available at https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS
> > (Expected fingerprint: 6A90F817481A73C1C419B62D8F2F220786C4FB2A
> > 86EDB9C33B8517228E88A8F93E48C0C6EF362B9E)
> >
> > Release notes (in progress) can be found at:
> > https://accumulo.apache.org/release_notes/1.7.2
> >
> > Please vote one of:
> > [ ] +1 - I have verified and accept...
> > [ ] +0 - I have reservations, but not strong enough to vote against...
> > [ ] -1 - Because..., I do not accept...
> > ... these artifacts as the 1.7.2 release of Apache Accumulo.
> >
> > This vote will end on Fri Jun 17 19:30:00 UTC 2016
> > (Fri Jun 17 15:30:00 EDT 2016 / Fri Jun 17 12:30:00 PDT 2016)
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > P.S. Hint: download the whole staging repo with
> > wget -erobots=off -r -l inf -np -nH \
> >
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/
> > # note the trailing slash is needed
>
>
>
> --
> busbey
>
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.2-rc1
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
-1
good:
* verified checksums and signatures
* source artifact corresponds to referenced commit
* source builds correctly with Oracle JDK 1.7.0_80 / Apache Maven
3.3.9 (including unit tests, not including ITs)
bad:
* LICENSE in source tarball references the "3 clause BSD" and "MIT"
licenses but does not provide their text or a pointer to where the
text can be found in the artifact.
* NOTICE in the binary tarball doesn't include any of the encryption
notice stuff that's in the source tarball NOTICE (I don't know if this
information is required in the NOTICE file, but it seems like we
should be consistent for things that are equally applicable in the
two).
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
> Accumulo Developers,
>
> Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo 1.7.2.
>
> All content generated via
> assemble/build.sh --create-release-candidate -P '!thrift'
>
> Git Commit:
> a49291b8aa85b81650f2b79f80b400e10b594795
> Branch:
> 1.7.2-rc1
>
> If this vote passes, a gpg-signed tag will be created using:
> git tag -f -m 'Apache Accumulo 1.7.2' -s rel/1.7.2
> a49291b8aa85b81650f2b79f80b400e10b594795
>
> Staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051
> Source (official release artifact):
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.2/accumulo-1.7.2-src.tar.gz
> Binary:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.2/accumulo-1.7.2-bin.tar.gz
> (Append ".sha1", ".md5", or ".asc" to download the signature/hash for a
> given artifact.)
>
> All artifacts were built and staged with:
> mvn release:prepare && mvn release:perform
>
> Signing keys are available at https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS
> (Expected fingerprint: 6A90F817481A73C1C419B62D8F2F220786C4FB2A
> 86EDB9C33B8517228E88A8F93E48C0C6EF362B9E)
>
> Release notes (in progress) can be found at:
> https://accumulo.apache.org/release_notes/1.7.2
>
> Please vote one of:
> [ ] +1 - I have verified and accept...
> [ ] +0 - I have reservations, but not strong enough to vote against...
> [ ] -1 - Because..., I do not accept...
> ... these artifacts as the 1.7.2 release of Apache Accumulo.
>
> This vote will end on Fri Jun 17 19:30:00 UTC 2016
> (Fri Jun 17 15:30:00 EDT 2016 / Fri Jun 17 12:30:00 PDT 2016)
>
> Thanks!
>
> P.S. Hint: download the whole staging repo with
> wget -erobots=off -r -l inf -np -nH \
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/
> # note the trailing slash is needed
--
busbey
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.2-rc1
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
Okay, that's the key I saw used.
+1
Verified checksums and sigs (all signed with the same key, identified by
Mike below).
Verified all ITs with Jenkins. Saw two timeouts
(org.apache.accumulo.test.replication.ReplicationIT.noDeadlock,
org.apache.accumulo.test.BadDeleteMarkersCreatedIT.test),
both of which passed after re-running them on their own.
Mike - I'm not sure I understand what JIRA you're asking me to create. The
issue I pointed out can't be easily avoided. It just means you have two
secret keys in your keyring (the other one, based on the fingerprint, is
http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x8F2F220786C4FB2A). That's
not really a problem. The script only generates a template, but it can't
tell which one is your default key which was used for signing. You've just
got to preview and edit the template before sending, in case it does
something weird like this. I just wanted to confirm which one you intended
to sign with before I verified and voted. No big deal IMO.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 5:54 PM Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
> The should be signed with this key:
> http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x3E48C0C6EF362B9E
>
> Can you file a JIRA to update the build script output?
>
> Mike
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Mike, did you intend to sign with your GPG key whose fingerprint is:
> > 6A90F817481A73C1C419B62D8F2F220786C4FB2A
> > or
> > 86EDB9C33B8517228E88A8F93E48C0C6EF362B9E
> > ?
> >
> > The build.sh script seemed to have put two in the email template,
> probably
> > because you have two GPG keys. I noticed that they were signed
> > with: 86EDB9C33B8517228E88A8F93E48C0C6EF362B9E
> >
> > Is this what you intended?
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:28 PM Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Accumulo Developers,
> > >
> > > Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo 1.7.2.
> > >
> > > All content generated via
> > > assemble/build.sh --create-release-candidate -P '!thrift'
> > >
> > > Git Commit:
> > > a49291b8aa85b81650f2b79f80b400e10b594795
> > > Branch:
> > > 1.7.2-rc1
> > >
> > > If this vote passes, a gpg-signed tag will be created using:
> > > git tag -f -m 'Apache Accumulo 1.7.2' -s rel/1.7.2
> > > a49291b8aa85b81650f2b79f80b400e10b594795
> > >
> > > Staging repo:
> > >
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051
> > > Source (official release artifact):
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.2/accumulo-1.7.2-src.tar.gz
> > > Binary:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.2/accumulo-1.7.2-bin.tar.gz
> > > (Append ".sha1", ".md5", or ".asc" to download the signature/hash for a
> > > given artifact.)
> > >
> > > All artifacts were built and staged with:
> > > mvn release:prepare && mvn release:perform
> > >
> > > Signing keys are available at
> https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS
> > > (Expected fingerprint: 6A90F817481A73C1C419B62D8F2F220786C4FB2A
> > > 86EDB9C33B8517228E88A8F93E48C0C6EF362B9E)
> > >
> > > Release notes (in progress) can be found at:
> > > https://accumulo.apache.org/release_notes/1.7.2
> > >
> > > Please vote one of:
> > > [ ] +1 - I have verified and accept...
> > > [ ] +0 - I have reservations, but not strong enough to vote against...
> > > [ ] -1 - Because..., I do not accept...
> > > ... these artifacts as the 1.7.2 release of Apache Accumulo.
> > >
> > > This vote will end on Fri Jun 17 19:30:00 UTC 2016
> > > (Fri Jun 17 15:30:00 EDT 2016 / Fri Jun 17 12:30:00 PDT 2016)
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > P.S. Hint: download the whole staging repo with
> > > wget -erobots=off -r -l inf -np -nH \
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/
> > > # note the trailing slash is needed
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.2-rc1
Posted by Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com>.
The should be signed with this key:
http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x3E48C0C6EF362B9E
Can you file a JIRA to update the build script output?
Mike
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> Mike, did you intend to sign with your GPG key whose fingerprint is:
> 6A90F817481A73C1C419B62D8F2F220786C4FB2A
> or
> 86EDB9C33B8517228E88A8F93E48C0C6EF362B9E
> ?
>
> The build.sh script seemed to have put two in the email template, probably
> because you have two GPG keys. I noticed that they were signed
> with: 86EDB9C33B8517228E88A8F93E48C0C6EF362B9E
>
> Is this what you intended?
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:28 PM Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
>
> > Accumulo Developers,
> >
> > Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo 1.7.2.
> >
> > All content generated via
> > assemble/build.sh --create-release-candidate -P '!thrift'
> >
> > Git Commit:
> > a49291b8aa85b81650f2b79f80b400e10b594795
> > Branch:
> > 1.7.2-rc1
> >
> > If this vote passes, a gpg-signed tag will be created using:
> > git tag -f -m 'Apache Accumulo 1.7.2' -s rel/1.7.2
> > a49291b8aa85b81650f2b79f80b400e10b594795
> >
> > Staging repo:
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051
> > Source (official release artifact):
> >
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.2/accumulo-1.7.2-src.tar.gz
> > Binary:
> >
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.2/accumulo-1.7.2-bin.tar.gz
> > (Append ".sha1", ".md5", or ".asc" to download the signature/hash for a
> > given artifact.)
> >
> > All artifacts were built and staged with:
> > mvn release:prepare && mvn release:perform
> >
> > Signing keys are available at https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS
> > (Expected fingerprint: 6A90F817481A73C1C419B62D8F2F220786C4FB2A
> > 86EDB9C33B8517228E88A8F93E48C0C6EF362B9E)
> >
> > Release notes (in progress) can be found at:
> > https://accumulo.apache.org/release_notes/1.7.2
> >
> > Please vote one of:
> > [ ] +1 - I have verified and accept...
> > [ ] +0 - I have reservations, but not strong enough to vote against...
> > [ ] -1 - Because..., I do not accept...
> > ... these artifacts as the 1.7.2 release of Apache Accumulo.
> >
> > This vote will end on Fri Jun 17 19:30:00 UTC 2016
> > (Fri Jun 17 15:30:00 EDT 2016 / Fri Jun 17 12:30:00 PDT 2016)
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > P.S. Hint: download the whole staging repo with
> > wget -erobots=off -r -l inf -np -nH \
> >
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/
> > # note the trailing slash is needed
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.2-rc1
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
Mike, did you intend to sign with your GPG key whose fingerprint is:
6A90F817481A73C1C419B62D8F2F220786C4FB2A
or
86EDB9C33B8517228E88A8F93E48C0C6EF362B9E
?
The build.sh script seemed to have put two in the email template, probably
because you have two GPG keys. I noticed that they were signed
with: 86EDB9C33B8517228E88A8F93E48C0C6EF362B9E
Is this what you intended?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:28 PM Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
> Accumulo Developers,
>
> Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo 1.7.2.
>
> All content generated via
> assemble/build.sh --create-release-candidate -P '!thrift'
>
> Git Commit:
> a49291b8aa85b81650f2b79f80b400e10b594795
> Branch:
> 1.7.2-rc1
>
> If this vote passes, a gpg-signed tag will be created using:
> git tag -f -m 'Apache Accumulo 1.7.2' -s rel/1.7.2
> a49291b8aa85b81650f2b79f80b400e10b594795
>
> Staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051
> Source (official release artifact):
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.2/accumulo-1.7.2-src.tar.gz
> Binary:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.2/accumulo-1.7.2-bin.tar.gz
> (Append ".sha1", ".md5", or ".asc" to download the signature/hash for a
> given artifact.)
>
> All artifacts were built and staged with:
> mvn release:prepare && mvn release:perform
>
> Signing keys are available at https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS
> (Expected fingerprint: 6A90F817481A73C1C419B62D8F2F220786C4FB2A
> 86EDB9C33B8517228E88A8F93E48C0C6EF362B9E)
>
> Release notes (in progress) can be found at:
> https://accumulo.apache.org/release_notes/1.7.2
>
> Please vote one of:
> [ ] +1 - I have verified and accept...
> [ ] +0 - I have reservations, but not strong enough to vote against...
> [ ] -1 - Because..., I do not accept...
> ... these artifacts as the 1.7.2 release of Apache Accumulo.
>
> This vote will end on Fri Jun 17 19:30:00 UTC 2016
> (Fri Jun 17 15:30:00 EDT 2016 / Fri Jun 17 12:30:00 PDT 2016)
>
> Thanks!
>
> P.S. Hint: download the whole staging repo with
> wget -erobots=off -r -l inf -np -nH \
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/
> # note the trailing slash is needed
>
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.2-rc1
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for the info, Mike!
Keith Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Mike Drob<md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
>
>> > Unit tests pass.
>> >
>> > ITs mostly pass. Have had transient failures on some, but have seen them
>> > all pass as well:
>> > DurabilityIT (ACCUMULO-4343)
>> > ChaoticBalancerIT (times out sometimes, completes other times, unable to
>> > consistently reproduce)
>> > AssignmentThreadsIT.testConcurrentAssignmentPerformance (was not
>> > performant enough, I assume this was a hardware contention issue)
>> >
>> > Installed on a cdh5.7.0 cluster and did some basic insert and query
>> > operations.
>> >
>> > Have not run CI, RW, or anything for replication tests yet. I'm about 50/50
>> > on having time to do that this week, so if anybody else wants to volunteer,
>> >
>
> I started CI w/o agitationrunning on 9 EC2 nodesyesterday. I will
> probably start a run w/ agitation.
Thanks, Keith. I wouldn't be able to get anything together until
Thursday night at best. If you want to extend the VOTE over the weekend,
I'll try to run stuff too, but I don't think it's necessary if Keith is
on the ball.
>> > that would be swell. I know we've discussed a lower test bar for bugfix
>> > releases in the past, so maybe we don't strictly need them? (A vote thread
>> > is probably not the best place to discuss this, though).
>> >
>
> I agree. I think these decisions can be made per release. If someone
> feels inadequate testing was done for a release they can vote accordingly
> and explain the vote.
Ditto. I was asking just to understand what you had done so far, not to
turn around and tell you that you didn't do enough :)
A quick CI and/or RW is always nice, but definitely not the 1 and 3 day
runs that we do for the "major" (in our old terms, "minor" in terms of
semver) releases.
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.2-rc1
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
> Unit tests pass.
>
> ITs mostly pass. Have had transient failures on some, but have seen them
> all pass as well:
> DurabilityIT (ACCUMULO-4343)
> ChaoticBalancerIT (times out sometimes, completes other times, unable to
> consistently reproduce)
> AssignmentThreadsIT.testConcurrentAssignmentPerformance (was not
> performant enough, I assume this was a hardware contention issue)
>
> Installed on a cdh5.7.0 cluster and did some basic insert and query
> operations.
>
> Have not run CI, RW, or anything for replication tests yet. I'm about 50/50
> on having time to do that this week, so if anybody else wants to volunteer,
>
I started CI w/o agitation running on 9 EC2 nodes yesterday. I will
probably start a run w/ agitation.
> that would be swell. I know we've discussed a lower test bar for bugfix
> releases in the past, so maybe we don't strictly need them? (A vote thread
> is probably not the best place to discuss this, though).
>
I agree. I think these decisions can be made per release. If someone
feels inadequate testing was done for a release they can vote accordingly
and explain the vote.
> Mike
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for putting this together, Mike.
> >
> > What kind of testing have you done so far and how have the results
> looked?
> >
> > Mike Drob wrote:
> >
> >> Accumulo Developers,
> >>
> >> Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo 1.7.2.
> >>
> >> All content generated via
> >> assemble/build.sh --create-release-candidate -P '!thrift'
> >>
> >> Git Commit:
> >> a49291b8aa85b81650f2b79f80b400e10b594795
> >> Branch:
> >> 1.7.2-rc1
> >>
> >> If this vote passes, a gpg-signed tag will be created using:
> >> git tag -f -m 'Apache Accumulo 1.7.2' -s rel/1.7.2
> >> a49291b8aa85b81650f2b79f80b400e10b594795
> >>
> >> Staging repo:
> >>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051
> >> Source (official release artifact):
> >>
> >>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.2/accumulo-1.7.2-src.tar.gz
> >> Binary:
> >>
> >>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.2/accumulo-1.7.2-bin.tar.gz
> >> (Append ".sha1", ".md5", or ".asc" to download the signature/hash for a
> >> given artifact.)
> >>
> >> All artifacts were built and staged with:
> >> mvn release:prepare&& mvn release:perform
> >>
> >> Signing keys are available at https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS
> >> (Expected fingerprint: 6A90F817481A73C1C419B62D8F2F220786C4FB2A
> >> 86EDB9C33B8517228E88A8F93E48C0C6EF362B9E)
> >>
> >> Release notes (in progress) can be found at:
> >> https://accumulo.apache.org/release_notes/1.7.2
> >>
> >> Please vote one of:
> >> [ ] +1 - I have verified and accept...
> >> [ ] +0 - I have reservations, but not strong enough to vote against...
> >> [ ] -1 - Because..., I do not accept...
> >> ... these artifacts as the 1.7.2 release of Apache Accumulo.
> >>
> >> This vote will end on Fri Jun 17 19:30:00 UTC 2016
> >> (Fri Jun 17 15:30:00 EDT 2016 / Fri Jun 17 12:30:00 PDT 2016)
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> P.S. Hint: download the whole staging repo with
> >> wget -erobots=off -r -l inf -np -nH \
> >>
> >>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/
> >> # note the trailing slash is needed
> >>
> >>
>
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.2-rc1
Posted by Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com>.
Unit tests pass.
ITs mostly pass. Have had transient failures on some, but have seen them
all pass as well:
DurabilityIT (ACCUMULO-4343)
ChaoticBalancerIT (times out sometimes, completes other times, unable to
consistently reproduce)
AssignmentThreadsIT.testConcurrentAssignmentPerformance (was not
performant enough, I assume this was a hardware contention issue)
Installed on a cdh5.7.0 cluster and did some basic insert and query
operations.
Have not run CI, RW, or anything for replication tests yet. I'm about 50/50
on having time to do that this week, so if anybody else wants to volunteer,
that would be swell. I know we've discussed a lower test bar for bugfix
releases in the past, so maybe we don't strictly need them? (A vote thread
is probably not the best place to discuss this, though).
Mike
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for putting this together, Mike.
>
> What kind of testing have you done so far and how have the results looked?
>
> Mike Drob wrote:
>
>> Accumulo Developers,
>>
>> Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo 1.7.2.
>>
>> All content generated via
>> assemble/build.sh --create-release-candidate -P '!thrift'
>>
>> Git Commit:
>> a49291b8aa85b81650f2b79f80b400e10b594795
>> Branch:
>> 1.7.2-rc1
>>
>> If this vote passes, a gpg-signed tag will be created using:
>> git tag -f -m 'Apache Accumulo 1.7.2' -s rel/1.7.2
>> a49291b8aa85b81650f2b79f80b400e10b594795
>>
>> Staging repo:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051
>> Source (official release artifact):
>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.2/accumulo-1.7.2-src.tar.gz
>> Binary:
>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.2/accumulo-1.7.2-bin.tar.gz
>> (Append ".sha1", ".md5", or ".asc" to download the signature/hash for a
>> given artifact.)
>>
>> All artifacts were built and staged with:
>> mvn release:prepare&& mvn release:perform
>>
>> Signing keys are available at https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS
>> (Expected fingerprint: 6A90F817481A73C1C419B62D8F2F220786C4FB2A
>> 86EDB9C33B8517228E88A8F93E48C0C6EF362B9E)
>>
>> Release notes (in progress) can be found at:
>> https://accumulo.apache.org/release_notes/1.7.2
>>
>> Please vote one of:
>> [ ] +1 - I have verified and accept...
>> [ ] +0 - I have reservations, but not strong enough to vote against...
>> [ ] -1 - Because..., I do not accept...
>> ... these artifacts as the 1.7.2 release of Apache Accumulo.
>>
>> This vote will end on Fri Jun 17 19:30:00 UTC 2016
>> (Fri Jun 17 15:30:00 EDT 2016 / Fri Jun 17 12:30:00 PDT 2016)
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> P.S. Hint: download the whole staging repo with
>> wget -erobots=off -r -l inf -np -nH \
>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/
>> # note the trailing slash is needed
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.2-rc1
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for putting this together, Mike.
What kind of testing have you done so far and how have the results looked?
Mike Drob wrote:
> Accumulo Developers,
>
> Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo 1.7.2.
>
> All content generated via
> assemble/build.sh --create-release-candidate -P '!thrift'
>
> Git Commit:
> a49291b8aa85b81650f2b79f80b400e10b594795
> Branch:
> 1.7.2-rc1
>
> If this vote passes, a gpg-signed tag will be created using:
> git tag -f -m 'Apache Accumulo 1.7.2' -s rel/1.7.2
> a49291b8aa85b81650f2b79f80b400e10b594795
>
> Staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051
> Source (official release artifact):
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.2/accumulo-1.7.2-src.tar.gz
> Binary:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.2/accumulo-1.7.2-bin.tar.gz
> (Append ".sha1", ".md5", or ".asc" to download the signature/hash for a
> given artifact.)
>
> All artifacts were built and staged with:
> mvn release:prepare&& mvn release:perform
>
> Signing keys are available at https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS
> (Expected fingerprint: 6A90F817481A73C1C419B62D8F2F220786C4FB2A
> 86EDB9C33B8517228E88A8F93E48C0C6EF362B9E)
>
> Release notes (in progress) can be found at:
> https://accumulo.apache.org/release_notes/1.7.2
>
> Please vote one of:
> [ ] +1 - I have verified and accept...
> [ ] +0 - I have reservations, but not strong enough to vote against...
> [ ] -1 - Because..., I do not accept...
> ... these artifacts as the 1.7.2 release of Apache Accumulo.
>
> This vote will end on Fri Jun 17 19:30:00 UTC 2016
> (Fri Jun 17 15:30:00 EDT 2016 / Fri Jun 17 12:30:00 PDT 2016)
>
> Thanks!
>
> P.S. Hint: download the whole staging repo with
> wget -erobots=off -r -l inf -np -nH \
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/
> # note the trailing slash is needed
>
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.2-rc1
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
+1
Just completed 2nd CI test run w/ Agitation and it was successful.
Ran 2 CI runs for 24 hrs w/ and w/o agitation. Ran on on EC2 w/ 1
m3.xlarge master node and 8 d2.xlarge worker nodes. Used ZK 3.4.8, Hadoop
2.6.3, and Centos 7.
Below is relevant output of MR job that verified run w/o agitation.
org.apache.accumulo.test.continuous.ContinuousVerify$Counts
REFERENCED=32732656313
UNREFERENCED=8001305
Below is relevant output of MR job that verified run w/ agitation.
org.apache.accumulo.test.continuous.ContinuousVerify$Counts
REFERENCED=18521922508
UNREFERENCED=7993099
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
> Accumulo Developers,
>
> Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo 1.7.2.
>
> All content generated via
> assemble/build.sh --create-release-candidate -P '!thrift'
>
> Git Commit:
> a49291b8aa85b81650f2b79f80b400e10b594795
> Branch:
> 1.7.2-rc1
>
> If this vote passes, a gpg-signed tag will be created using:
> git tag -f -m 'Apache Accumulo 1.7.2' -s rel/1.7.2
> a49291b8aa85b81650f2b79f80b400e10b594795
>
> Staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051
> Source (official release artifact):
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.2/accumulo-1.7.2-src.tar.gz
> Binary:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.2/accumulo-1.7.2-bin.tar.gz
> (Append ".sha1", ".md5", or ".asc" to download the signature/hash for a
> given artifact.)
>
> All artifacts were built and staged with:
> mvn release:prepare && mvn release:perform
>
> Signing keys are available at https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS
> (Expected fingerprint: 6A90F817481A73C1C419B62D8F2F220786C4FB2A
> 86EDB9C33B8517228E88A8F93E48C0C6EF362B9E)
>
> Release notes (in progress) can be found at:
> https://accumulo.apache.org/release_notes/1.7.2
>
> Please vote one of:
> [ ] +1 - I have verified and accept...
> [ ] +0 - I have reservations, but not strong enough to vote against...
> [ ] -1 - Because..., I do not accept...
> ... these artifacts as the 1.7.2 release of Apache Accumulo.
>
> This vote will end on Fri Jun 17 19:30:00 UTC 2016
> (Fri Jun 17 15:30:00 EDT 2016 / Fri Jun 17 12:30:00 PDT 2016)
>
> Thanks!
>
> P.S. Hint: download the whole staging repo with
> wget -erobots=off -r -l inf -np -nH \
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/
> # note the trailing slash is needed
>
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.2-rc1
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
Ran a 24hr CI w/o agitation on EC2 w/ 1 m3.xlarge master node and 8
d2.xlarge worker nodes. Verification completed successfully. I am going
to run a test w/ agitation.
org.apache.accumulo.test.continuous.ContinuousVerify$Counts
REFERENCED=32732656313
UNREFERENCED=8001305
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
> Accumulo Developers,
>
> Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo 1.7.2.
>
> All content generated via
> assemble/build.sh --create-release-candidate -P '!thrift'
>
> Git Commit:
> a49291b8aa85b81650f2b79f80b400e10b594795
> Branch:
> 1.7.2-rc1
>
> If this vote passes, a gpg-signed tag will be created using:
> git tag -f -m 'Apache Accumulo 1.7.2' -s rel/1.7.2
> a49291b8aa85b81650f2b79f80b400e10b594795
>
> Staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051
> Source (official release artifact):
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.2/accumulo-1.7.2-src.tar.gz
> Binary:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.7.2/accumulo-1.7.2-bin.tar.gz
> (Append ".sha1", ".md5", or ".asc" to download the signature/hash for a
> given artifact.)
>
> All artifacts were built and staged with:
> mvn release:prepare && mvn release:perform
>
> Signing keys are available at https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS
> (Expected fingerprint: 6A90F817481A73C1C419B62D8F2F220786C4FB2A
> 86EDB9C33B8517228E88A8F93E48C0C6EF362B9E)
>
> Release notes (in progress) can be found at:
> https://accumulo.apache.org/release_notes/1.7.2
>
> Please vote one of:
> [ ] +1 - I have verified and accept...
> [ ] +0 - I have reservations, but not strong enough to vote against...
> [ ] -1 - Because..., I do not accept...
> ... these artifacts as the 1.7.2 release of Apache Accumulo.
>
> This vote will end on Fri Jun 17 19:30:00 UTC 2016
> (Fri Jun 17 15:30:00 EDT 2016 / Fri Jun 17 12:30:00 PDT 2016)
>
> Thanks!
>
> P.S. Hint: download the whole staging repo with
> wget -erobots=off -r -l inf -np -nH \
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1051/
> # note the trailing slash is needed
>