You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geode.apache.org by Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> on 2016/01/19 22:53:25 UTC
[VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release -
v1.0.0-incubating.M1
This is the first release for Apache Geode, version 1.0.0-incubating.M1. Thanks to all the community members to drive towards this first milestone!
It fixes the following issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12318420&version=12334248
*** Please download, test and vote by Wednesday, January 20th, 1700 hrs US Pacific.
Note that we are voting upon the source (tag):
rel/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/rel/v1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
Commit ID: e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=commit;h=e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
Source and binary files:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/geode/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1/
For the first release, the documentation on how to install and use Apache Geode are hosted on pivotal.io:
http://geode.docs.pivotal.io
Maven staging repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeode-1000/
Geode's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-geode/blob/release/1.0.0-incubating.M1/KEYS
Release Key: pub 4096R/C72CFB64 2015-10-01
Thanks,
Nitin & Anthony
________________________________
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>.
For GEODE-610, I’ve committed updates as 3bd930fd45bef7a15f6aa84268dcbf66ed6694a6 on develop.
I’ll work on spinning RC2 now.
Anthony
> On Jan 26, 2016, at 6:24 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 26, 2016, at 2:55 PM, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Can the year on the copyright in both the source & binary NOTICE file also
>> be updated for RC2?
>
> Yes we can!
>
>>
>> Theres no issue with distributing jopt-simple & JSON from a license PoV,
>> but policy on this is unclear to me. As a principle the ASF doesn't release
>> other people/project's code when they haven't donated it to the ASF, but at
>> the same time alot of releases contain files that were not donated. As a
>> good open source citizen, we should work with the jopt-simple project
>> rather than forking releasing their code. However, it seems fine to me that
>> its dealt with during incubation rather than specifically for this release.
>>
>
> Thanks for adding your perspective and FWIW I completely agree.
>
>> So yes, the strategy outlined for RC2 makes sense to me.
>>
>> Niall
>>
>
> So for spinning an RC2 we have the following changes to pull into the release/1.0.0-incubating.M1 branch:
>
> 1) Update instructions in README.md (GEODE-769)
>
> commits:
> 2609946d8863d4e576820ac92d4318fd5f295b5a
> 9b74f89bbd64cc8a90cf256ad1af2466e21c6388
>
> 2) Update copyright publication year in src/bin NOTICE files (GEODE-815)
>
> commit:
> 80971d5250f7bc6fe3341d04c249cbee261dab0d
>
> 3) Include Spring, Netty in binary NOTICE file (GEODE-610)
>
> commit:
> TBD…there’s still some discussion happening on this issue. Comments welcome!
>
> Let’s try to wrap up the discussion on GEODE-610 so we can cut the RC tomorrow.
>
> Thanks,
> Anthony
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>.
> On Jan 26, 2016, at 2:55 PM, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Can the year on the copyright in both the source & binary NOTICE file also
> be updated for RC2?
Yes we can!
>
> Theres no issue with distributing jopt-simple & JSON from a license PoV,
> but policy on this is unclear to me. As a principle the ASF doesn't release
> other people/project's code when they haven't donated it to the ASF, but at
> the same time alot of releases contain files that were not donated. As a
> good open source citizen, we should work with the jopt-simple project
> rather than forking releasing their code. However, it seems fine to me that
> its dealt with during incubation rather than specifically for this release.
>
Thanks for adding your perspective and FWIW I completely agree.
> So yes, the strategy outlined for RC2 makes sense to me.
>
> Niall
>
So for spinning an RC2 we have the following changes to pull into the release/1.0.0-incubating.M1 branch:
1) Update instructions in README.md (GEODE-769)
commits:
2609946d8863d4e576820ac92d4318fd5f295b5a
9b74f89bbd64cc8a90cf256ad1af2466e21c6388
2) Update copyright publication year in src/bin NOTICE files (GEODE-815)
commit:
80971d5250f7bc6fe3341d04c249cbee261dab0d
3) Include Spring, Netty in binary NOTICE file (GEODE-610)
commit:
TBD…there’s still some discussion happening on this issue. Comments welcome!
Let’s try to wrap up the discussion on GEODE-610 so we can cut the RC tomorrow.
Thanks,
Anthony
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > Reviewing the feedback received so far on RC1 we have the following
> issues to consider:
> >
> > 1) The binary NOTICE files needs additions for Spring and Netty [1].
> > 2) The source distributions instructions specify use of gradlew which is
> not included and also specify use of jdk 1.7 instead of jdk1.8.
> >
> > I think the above items require spinning a new release candidate, RC2.
> > Are there other issues that would be considered release blockers that
> > should be fixed prior to creating RC2?
>
> Agreed. Before we do that, it would be really great if Niall can chime
> in directly and tell us whether the strategy for RC2 outlined above
> makes sense from his perspective. IOW, whether taking care of
> his feedback that way would make him more of a +1 for this release.
>
> Niall?
>
Can the year on the copyright in both the source & binary NOTICE file also
be updated for RC2?
Theres no issue with distributing jopt-simple & JSON from a license PoV,
but policy on this is unclear to me. As a principle the ASF doesn't release
other people/project's code when they haven't donated it to the ASF, but at
the same time alot of releases contain files that were not donated. As a
good open source citizen, we should work with the jopt-simple project
rather than forking releasing their code. However, it seems fine to me that
its dealt with during incubation rather than specifically for this release.
So yes, the strategy outlined for RC2 makes sense to me.
Niall
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Reviewing the feedback received so far on RC1 we have the following issues to consider:
>
> 1) The binary NOTICE files needs additions for Spring and Netty [1].
> 2) The source distributions instructions specify use of gradlew which is not included and also specify use of jdk 1.7 instead of jdk1.8.
>
> I think the above items require spinning a new release candidate, RC2.
> Are there other issues that would be considered release blockers that
> should be fixed prior to creating RC2?
Agreed. Before we do that, it would be really great if Niall can chime
in directly and tell us whether the strategy for RC2 outlined above
makes sense from his perspective. IOW, whether taking care of
his feedback that way would make him more of a +1 for this release.
Niall?
Thanks,
Roman.
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>.
Reviewing the feedback received so far on RC1 we have the following issues to consider:
1) The binary NOTICE files needs additions for Spring and Netty [1].
2) The source distributions instructions specify use of gradlew which is not included and also specify use of jdk 1.7 instead of jdk1.8.
I think the above items require spinning a new release candidate, RC2. Are there other issues that would be considered release blockers that should be fixed prior to creating RC2?
Thanks,
Anthony
[1] I’ve added a corrected NOTICE file to GEODE-610 for review, see https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12784020/NOTICE.
> On Jan 23, 2016, at 8:00 AM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> I think we should remove gemfire-json and gemfire-joptsimpleon on the road to TLP.
>
> Just like we (Geode) would like users to submit patches and bug reports, we should do the same for our upstream dependencies.
>
> Anthony
>
>> On Jan 22, 2016, at 7:02 PM, William Markito <wm...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>
>> I do see it as something we should address before graduation but not necessarily needed for a release.
>>
>> So unless the mentors think otherwise we can address that even before a final 1.0 in between the milestones and RCs.
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Jan 22, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>>> I suggest we extend the vote through Monday January 25 at 5pm PST to
>>>> clarify this question and any issues related to the binary NOTICE file.
>>>
>>> Sure. But if you could state your opinion on how the question I asked
>>> should be answered that'd be appreciated as well.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Roman.
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>.
I think we should remove gemfire-json and gemfire-joptsimpleon on the road to TLP.
Just like we (Geode) would like users to submit patches and bug reports, we should do the same for our upstream dependencies.
Anthony
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 7:02 PM, William Markito <wm...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> I do see it as something we should address before graduation but not necessarily needed for a release.
>
> So unless the mentors think otherwise we can address that even before a final 1.0 in between the milestones and RCs.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jan 22, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>> I suggest we extend the vote through Monday January 25 at 5pm PST to
>>> clarify this question and any issues related to the binary NOTICE file.
>>
>> Sure. But if you could state your opinion on how the question I asked
>> should be answered that'd be appreciated as well.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by William Markito <wm...@pivotal.io>.
I do see it as something we should address before graduation but not necessarily needed for a release.
So unless the mentors think otherwise we can address that even before a final 1.0 in between the milestones and RCs.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> I suggest we extend the vote through Monday January 25 at 5pm PST to
>> clarify this question and any issues related to the binary NOTICE file.
>
> Sure. But if you could state your opinion on how the question I asked
> should be answered that'd be appreciated as well.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> I suggest we extend the vote through Monday January 25 at 5pm PST to
> clarify this question and any issues related to the binary NOTICE file.
Sure. But if you could state your opinion on how the question I asked
should be answered that'd be appreciated as well.
Thanks,
Roman.
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>.
I suggest we extend the vote through Monday January 25 at 5pm PST to clarify this question and any issues related to the binary NOTICE file.
Anthony
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 5:03 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> Originally, gemfire-json and gemfire-joptsimple were bundled to fix bugs present in those libs.
>> There’s an intent to move away from the JSON parser entirely in GEODE-629.
>> Attached to that bug is a diff of the changes made to the original source.
>> For the joptsimple library, I’ve filed a new JIRA as GEODE-826 (also with diffs attached).
>>
>> In general, I do think it makes sense to move away from redistributing these libs though
>> I’m still looking for ASF policy discussions on this topic. Anyone have specific pointers to previous discussions?
>
> Let me ask you this: do you feel like this is something you absolutely do
> need to fix before graduating?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Originally, gemfire-json and gemfire-joptsimple were bundled to fix bugs present in those libs.
> There’s an intent to move away from the JSON parser entirely in GEODE-629.
> Attached to that bug is a diff of the changes made to the original source.
> For the joptsimple library, I’ve filed a new JIRA as GEODE-826 (also with diffs attached).
>
> In general, I do think it makes sense to move away from redistributing these libs though
> I’m still looking for ASF policy discussions on this topic. Anyone have specific pointers to previous discussions?
Let me ask you this: do you feel like this is something you absolutely do
need to fix before graduating?
Thanks,
Roman.
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>.
Originally, gemfire-json and gemfire-joptsimple were bundled to fix bugs present in those libs. There’s an intent to move away from the JSON parser entirely in GEODE-629. Attached to that bug is a diff of the changes made to the original source. For the joptsimple library, I’ve filed a new JIRA as GEODE-826 (also with diffs attached).
In general, I do think it makes sense to move away from redistributing these libs though I’m still looking for ASF policy discussions on this topic. Anyone have specific pointers to previous discussions?
Anthony
> On Jan 19, 2016, at 8:07 PM, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Firstly, great job on producing the first RC. From an ASF release PoV, the
> main concerns for me would be gemfire-joptsimple and the binary distro
> NOTICE file and those stop me giving a +1 vote. From a user PoV the
> dependencies in the maven pom look painful, trying to determine which can
> safely be excluded.
>
>
> 3. Maven Artifacts
> * The ASF frowns upon distributing other open source projects without their
> consent and gemfire-joptsimple (& perhaps gemfire-json) raises concerns.
> Also not re-packaging it means users could face a dependency issue if they
> also use joptsimple. Lastly, "gemfire-joptsimple" could violate someone
> elses mark.
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>.
Niall, this is great work and many things for your continued contributions!
I think we need to go through this in detail and writeup about 20 JIRA’s.
Anthony
> On Jan 19, 2016, at 8:07 PM, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Firstly, great job on producing the first RC. From an ASF release PoV, the
> main concerns for me would be gemfire-joptsimple and the binary distro
> NOTICE file and those stop me giving a +1 vote. From a user PoV the
> dependencies in the maven pom look painful, trying to determine which can
> safely be excluded.
>
> 1. Source Distribution
> * I checked the LICENSE, NOTICE & DISCLAIMER files were present
> * The LICENSE file looks good
> * The Copyright in the NOTICE file should be updated to "2015-2016"
> * I ran RAT over the source distro with no exclusions and all looks good
> * After installing Gradle, the source distro built without any issue (ran
> "gradle build")
>
> 2. Binary Distribution
> * I checked the LICENSE, NOTICE & DISCLAIMER files were present
> * The LICENSE file looks good
> * The Copyright in the NOTICE file should be updated to "2015-2016"
> * The NOTICE file in the binary distro should include any NOTICES from
> Apache Licensed dependencies - I found NOTICES for Spring, Netty & Snappy
> and attached details to GEODE-610
>
> 3. Maven Artifacts
> * The ASF frowns upon distributing other open source projects without their
> consent and gemfire-joptsimple (& perhaps gemfire-json) raises concerns.
> Also not re-packaging it means users could face a dependency issue if they
> also use joptsimple. Lastly, "gemfire-joptsimple" could violate someone
> elses mark.
> * pom dependencies look like an issue - see below
> * It would be better if the maven artifacts were named "geode" rather than
> "gemfire"
> * pom files don't have the license header
> * The gemfire-junit-1.0.0-incubating.M1.jar is empty so would be better to
> not create this maven artifact
> * The ".asc" files don't need checksums (".asc.md5" & ".asc.sha1" files)
>
> 4. pom dependencies
> I did a quick scan of the required dependencies for gemfire-core (listed
> below). If I'm building a gemfire client and depend on gemfire-core, do I
> really need all those dependencies? Do I always need them for a gemfire
> member? Looks to me like some of them should be "optional" or "provided" -
> especially some of the logging stuff. From a quick look at some of them:
> * Spring Framework only referenced in CLI & Web, except XmlEntity (uses
> org.springframework.util.Assert) and PdxInstanceImpl (uses
> org.springframework.util.StringUtils)
> * SequenceFile only class to directly reference commons-logging
> * commons-lang only used in hdfs & CLI
> * javax.mail only used in MailManager
> * Jetty only referenced by ManagementAgent & RestAgent, except for
> CumulativeNonDistinctResults
> * Netty only referenced in the redis package
> * Can't find any reference to slf4j
>
> 5. gemfire-core required dependencies
> * antlr
> * commons-io
> * commons-lang
> * commons-logging
> * commons-modeler
> * fastutil
> * findbugs-annotations
> * gemfire-common
> * gemfire-joptsimple
> * gemfire-json
> * hbase
> * jackson-annotations
> * jackson-core
> * jackson-databind
> * jansi
> * javax.activation
> * javax.mail-api
> * javax.servlet-api
> * javax.transaction-api
> * jetty-http
> * jetty-io
> * jetty-security
> * jetty-server
> * jetty-servlet
> * jetty-util
> * jetty-webapp
> * jetty-xml
> * jline
> * jna
> * log4j-api
> * log4j-core
> * log4j-jcl
> * log4j-jul
> * log4j-slf4j-impl
> * mx4j
> * mx4j-remote
> * mx4j-tools
> * netty-all
> * slf4j-api
> * snappy-java
> * spring-aop
> * spring-beans
> * spring-context
> * spring-context-support
> * spring-core
> * spring-data-commons
> * spring-expression
> * spring-shell
> * spring-tx
> * spring-web
> * spring-webmvc
>
> Niall
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
>
>> This is the first release for Apache Geode, version 1.0.0-incubating.M1.
>> Thanks to all the community members to drive towards this first milestone!
>>
>> It fixes the following issues:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12318420&version=12334248
>>
>> *** Please download, test and vote by Wednesday, January 20th, 1700 hrs US
>> Pacific.
>>
>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag):
>> rel/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
>>
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/rel/v1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
>>
>>
>> Commit ID: e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
>>
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=commit;h=e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
>>
>>
>> Source and binary files:
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/geode/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1/
>>
>> For the first release, the documentation on how to install and use Apache
>> Geode are hosted on pivotal.io:
>> http://geode.docs.pivotal.io
>>
>>
>> Maven staging repo:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeode-1000/
>>
>>
>> Geode's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-geode/blob/release/1.0.0-incubating.M1/KEYS
>>
>>
>> Release Key: pub 4096R/C72CFB64 2015-10-01
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nitin & Anthony
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release -
v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Bruce Schuchardt <bs...@pivotal.io>.
#5 should include jgroups for non-clients
Le 1/19/2016 8:07 PM, Niall Pemberton a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Firstly, great job on producing the first RC. From an ASF release PoV, the
> main concerns for me would be gemfire-joptsimple and the binary distro
> NOTICE file and those stop me giving a +1 vote. From a user PoV the
> dependencies in the maven pom look painful, trying to determine which can
> safely be excluded.
>
> 1. Source Distribution
> * I checked the LICENSE, NOTICE & DISCLAIMER files were present
> * The LICENSE file looks good
> * The Copyright in the NOTICE file should be updated to "2015-2016"
> * I ran RAT over the source distro with no exclusions and all looks good
> * After installing Gradle, the source distro built without any issue (ran
> "gradle build")
>
> 2. Binary Distribution
> * I checked the LICENSE, NOTICE & DISCLAIMER files were present
> * The LICENSE file looks good
> * The Copyright in the NOTICE file should be updated to "2015-2016"
> * The NOTICE file in the binary distro should include any NOTICES from
> Apache Licensed dependencies - I found NOTICES for Spring, Netty & Snappy
> and attached details to GEODE-610
>
> 3. Maven Artifacts
> * The ASF frowns upon distributing other open source projects without their
> consent and gemfire-joptsimple (& perhaps gemfire-json) raises concerns.
> Also not re-packaging it means users could face a dependency issue if they
> also use joptsimple. Lastly, "gemfire-joptsimple" could violate someone
> elses mark.
> * pom dependencies look like an issue - see below
> * It would be better if the maven artifacts were named "geode" rather than
> "gemfire"
> * pom files don't have the license header
> * The gemfire-junit-1.0.0-incubating.M1.jar is empty so would be better to
> not create this maven artifact
> * The ".asc" files don't need checksums (".asc.md5" & ".asc.sha1" files)
>
> 4. pom dependencies
> I did a quick scan of the required dependencies for gemfire-core (listed
> below). If I'm building a gemfire client and depend on gemfire-core, do I
> really need all those dependencies? Do I always need them for a gemfire
> member? Looks to me like some of them should be "optional" or "provided" -
> especially some of the logging stuff. From a quick look at some of them:
> * Spring Framework only referenced in CLI & Web, except XmlEntity (uses
> org.springframework.util.Assert) and PdxInstanceImpl (uses
> org.springframework.util.StringUtils)
> * SequenceFile only class to directly reference commons-logging
> * commons-lang only used in hdfs & CLI
> * javax.mail only used in MailManager
> * Jetty only referenced by ManagementAgent & RestAgent, except for
> CumulativeNonDistinctResults
> * Netty only referenced in the redis package
> * Can't find any reference to slf4j
>
> 5. gemfire-core required dependencies
> * antlr
> * commons-io
> * commons-lang
> * commons-logging
> * commons-modeler
> * fastutil
> * findbugs-annotations
> * gemfire-common
> * gemfire-joptsimple
> * gemfire-json
> * hbase
> * jackson-annotations
> * jackson-core
> * jackson-databind
> * jansi
> * javax.activation
> * javax.mail-api
> * javax.servlet-api
> * javax.transaction-api
> * jetty-http
> * jetty-io
> * jetty-security
> * jetty-server
> * jetty-servlet
> * jetty-util
> * jetty-webapp
> * jetty-xml
> * jline
> * jna
> * log4j-api
> * log4j-core
> * log4j-jcl
> * log4j-jul
> * log4j-slf4j-impl
> * mx4j
> * mx4j-remote
> * mx4j-tools
> * netty-all
> * slf4j-api
> * snappy-java
> * spring-aop
> * spring-beans
> * spring-context
> * spring-context-support
> * spring-core
> * spring-data-commons
> * spring-expression
> * spring-shell
> * spring-tx
> * spring-web
> * spring-webmvc
>
> Niall
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
>
>> This is the first release for Apache Geode, version 1.0.0-incubating.M1.
>> Thanks to all the community members to drive towards this first milestone!
>>
>> It fixes the following issues:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12318420&version=12334248
>>
>> *** Please download, test and vote by Wednesday, January 20th, 1700 hrs US
>> Pacific.
>>
>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag):
>> rel/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
>>
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/rel/v1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
>>
>>
>> Commit ID: e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
>>
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=commit;h=e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
>>
>>
>> Source and binary files:
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/geode/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1/
>>
>> For the first release, the documentation on how to install and use Apache
>> Geode are hosted on pivotal.io:
>> http://geode.docs.pivotal.io
>>
>>
>> Maven staging repo:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeode-1000/
>>
>>
>> Geode's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-geode/blob/release/1.0.0-incubating.M1/KEYS
>>
>>
>> Release Key: pub 4096R/C72CFB64 2015-10-01
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nitin & Anthony
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io>.
+1 w/r/t copyright - single year policy is tried and tested in the pubs world, stands up to legal challenges. Note, however, that in some disputes the earlier date wins.
> On Jan 20, 2016, at 7:02 PM, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Niall Pemberton
> <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Firstly, great job on producing the first RC. From an ASF release PoV, the
>> main concerns for me would be gemfire-joptsimple and the binary distro
>> NOTICE file and those stop me giving a +1 vote. From a user PoV the
>> dependencies in the maven pom look painful, trying to determine which can
>> safely be excluded.
>>
>> 1. Source Distribution
>> * I checked the LICENSE, NOTICE & DISCLAIMER files were present
>> * The LICENSE file looks good
>> * The Copyright in the NOTICE file should be updated to "2015-2016"
>
> As this is the first release, my suggestion would be to just have it
> be 2016. In general, you should really only have one copyright year
> (the most recent one) - see what httpd does:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/NOTICE
>
> I'm not sure why the docs on
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html differ from what httpd
> does - a topic for legal-discuss@, I guess. I'd just follow what
> httpd does and move on with life.
>
> Cheers. -- justin
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Niall Pemberton
<ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Firstly, great job on producing the first RC. From an ASF release PoV, the
> main concerns for me would be gemfire-joptsimple and the binary distro
> NOTICE file and those stop me giving a +1 vote. From a user PoV the
> dependencies in the maven pom look painful, trying to determine which can
> safely be excluded.
>
> 1. Source Distribution
> * I checked the LICENSE, NOTICE & DISCLAIMER files were present
> * The LICENSE file looks good
> * The Copyright in the NOTICE file should be updated to "2015-2016"
As this is the first release, my suggestion would be to just have it
be 2016. In general, you should really only have one copyright year
(the most recent one) - see what httpd does:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/NOTICE
I'm not sure why the docs on
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html differ from what httpd
does - a topic for legal-discuss@, I guess. I'd just follow what
httpd does and move on with life.
Cheers. -- justin
Re: gemfire-junit
Posted by William Markito <wm...@pivotal.io>.
+1
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 12:33 AM Kirk Lund <kl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > -Dan
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On a different thread, Niall pointed out:
> > >
> > > > On Jan 19, 2016, at 8:07 PM, Niall Pemberton <
> > niall.pemberton@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > * The gemfire-junit-1.0.0-incubating.M1.jar is empty so would be
> better
> > > to
> > > > not create this maven artifact
> > >
> > > Looking at the gemfire-junit project I think we should move the code
> into
> > > src/main/java (except for the unit tests). This meets the expectation
> > for
> > > a subproject and simplifies the build dependencies.
> > >
> > > Anthony
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: gemfire-junit
Posted by Kirk Lund <kl...@pivotal.io>.
+1
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> +1
>
> -Dan
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > On a different thread, Niall pointed out:
> >
> > > On Jan 19, 2016, at 8:07 PM, Niall Pemberton <
> niall.pemberton@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > * The gemfire-junit-1.0.0-incubating.M1.jar is empty so would be better
> > to
> > > not create this maven artifact
> >
> > Looking at the gemfire-junit project I think we should move the code into
> > src/main/java (except for the unit tests). This meets the expectation
> for
> > a subproject and simplifies the build dependencies.
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> >
>
Re: gemfire-junit
Posted by Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>.
+1
-Dan
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> On a different thread, Niall pointed out:
>
> > On Jan 19, 2016, at 8:07 PM, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > * The gemfire-junit-1.0.0-incubating.M1.jar is empty so would be better
> to
> > not create this maven artifact
>
> Looking at the gemfire-junit project I think we should move the code into
> src/main/java (except for the unit tests). This meets the expectation for
> a subproject and simplifies the build dependencies.
>
> Anthony
>
>
gemfire-junit
Posted by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>.
On a different thread, Niall pointed out:
> On Jan 19, 2016, at 8:07 PM, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> * The gemfire-junit-1.0.0-incubating.M1.jar is empty so would be better to
> not create this maven artifact
Looking at the gemfire-junit project I think we should move the code into src/main/java (except for the unit tests). This meets the expectation for a subproject and simplifies the build dependencies.
Anthony
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Firstly, great job on producing the first RC. From an ASF release PoV, the
main concerns for me would be gemfire-joptsimple and the binary distro
NOTICE file and those stop me giving a +1 vote. From a user PoV the
dependencies in the maven pom look painful, trying to determine which can
safely be excluded.
1. Source Distribution
* I checked the LICENSE, NOTICE & DISCLAIMER files were present
* The LICENSE file looks good
* The Copyright in the NOTICE file should be updated to "2015-2016"
* I ran RAT over the source distro with no exclusions and all looks good
* After installing Gradle, the source distro built without any issue (ran
"gradle build")
2. Binary Distribution
* I checked the LICENSE, NOTICE & DISCLAIMER files were present
* The LICENSE file looks good
* The Copyright in the NOTICE file should be updated to "2015-2016"
* The NOTICE file in the binary distro should include any NOTICES from
Apache Licensed dependencies - I found NOTICES for Spring, Netty & Snappy
and attached details to GEODE-610
3. Maven Artifacts
* The ASF frowns upon distributing other open source projects without their
consent and gemfire-joptsimple (& perhaps gemfire-json) raises concerns.
Also not re-packaging it means users could face a dependency issue if they
also use joptsimple. Lastly, "gemfire-joptsimple" could violate someone
elses mark.
* pom dependencies look like an issue - see below
* It would be better if the maven artifacts were named "geode" rather than
"gemfire"
* pom files don't have the license header
* The gemfire-junit-1.0.0-incubating.M1.jar is empty so would be better to
not create this maven artifact
* The ".asc" files don't need checksums (".asc.md5" & ".asc.sha1" files)
4. pom dependencies
I did a quick scan of the required dependencies for gemfire-core (listed
below). If I'm building a gemfire client and depend on gemfire-core, do I
really need all those dependencies? Do I always need them for a gemfire
member? Looks to me like some of them should be "optional" or "provided" -
especially some of the logging stuff. From a quick look at some of them:
* Spring Framework only referenced in CLI & Web, except XmlEntity (uses
org.springframework.util.Assert) and PdxInstanceImpl (uses
org.springframework.util.StringUtils)
* SequenceFile only class to directly reference commons-logging
* commons-lang only used in hdfs & CLI
* javax.mail only used in MailManager
* Jetty only referenced by ManagementAgent & RestAgent, except for
CumulativeNonDistinctResults
* Netty only referenced in the redis package
* Can't find any reference to slf4j
5. gemfire-core required dependencies
* antlr
* commons-io
* commons-lang
* commons-logging
* commons-modeler
* fastutil
* findbugs-annotations
* gemfire-common
* gemfire-joptsimple
* gemfire-json
* hbase
* jackson-annotations
* jackson-core
* jackson-databind
* jansi
* javax.activation
* javax.mail-api
* javax.servlet-api
* javax.transaction-api
* jetty-http
* jetty-io
* jetty-security
* jetty-server
* jetty-servlet
* jetty-util
* jetty-webapp
* jetty-xml
* jline
* jna
* log4j-api
* log4j-core
* log4j-jcl
* log4j-jul
* log4j-slf4j-impl
* mx4j
* mx4j-remote
* mx4j-tools
* netty-all
* slf4j-api
* snappy-java
* spring-aop
* spring-beans
* spring-context
* spring-context-support
* spring-core
* spring-data-commons
* spring-expression
* spring-shell
* spring-tx
* spring-web
* spring-webmvc
Niall
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
> This is the first release for Apache Geode, version 1.0.0-incubating.M1.
> Thanks to all the community members to drive towards this first milestone!
>
> It fixes the following issues:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12318420&version=12334248
>
> *** Please download, test and vote by Wednesday, January 20th, 1700 hrs US
> Pacific.
>
> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag):
> rel/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
>
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/rel/v1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
>
>
> Commit ID: e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
>
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=commit;h=e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
>
>
> Source and binary files:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/geode/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1/
>
> For the first release, the documentation on how to install and use Apache
> Geode are hosted on pivotal.io:
> http://geode.docs.pivotal.io
>
>
> Maven staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeode-1000/
>
>
> Geode's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-geode/blob/release/1.0.0-incubating.M1/KEYS
>
>
> Release Key: pub 4096R/C72CFB64 2015-10-01
>
> Thanks,
> Nitin & Anthony
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io>.
A JIRA was filed on 1/21 by Dick Cavender on the gradlew issue, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-826
The JDK version in README.md was fixed earlier. It’s on the develop branch, but not release/1.0.0-incubating.M1.
Are these issues serious enough to re-spin the release builds? Because of these, none of the build instructions in the source distribution are correct.
Ken
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 4:14 PM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> I’m installing the M1 release from the source distribution (.tar.gz) and have noted a couple
> issues:
>
> 1. The gradle wrapper script, gradlew, is missing. I expected to find this script at the top level of the un-zipped archive, where it is when cloning the incubator-geode git repo. Building with this script rather than directly executing grade is the recommended procedure as shown in COMPILING.txt and in the “Geode in 5 minutes” section of README.md.
>
> 2. It was my understanding that Geode is targeted to idk 1.8. The “Geode in 5 minutes” in README.md specifies jdk1.7.75.
>
> Ken Howe
>
>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
>>
>> This is the first release for Apache Geode, version 1.0.0-incubating.M1. Thanks to all the community members to drive towards this first milestone!
>>
>> It fixes the following issues:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12318420&version=12334248
>>
>> *** Please download, test and vote by Wednesday, January 20th, 1700 hrs US Pacific.
>>
>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag):
>> rel/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/rel/v1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
>>
>>
>> Commit ID: e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=commit;h=e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
>>
>>
>> Source and binary files:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/geode/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1/
>>
>> For the first release, the documentation on how to install and use Apache Geode are hosted on pivotal.io:
>> http://geode.docs.pivotal.io
>>
>>
>> Maven staging repo:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeode-1000/
>>
>>
>> Geode's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-geode/blob/release/1.0.0-incubating.M1/KEYS
>>
>>
>> Release Key: pub 4096R/C72CFB64 2015-10-01
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nitin & Anthony
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io>.
This afternoon I did build successfully from the source distribution after installing gradle from gradle.org. Updating the documentation looks like just adding the step to install gradle and specifying gradle in place of gradlew everywhere?
Ken
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 1:56 PM, Anthony Baker <me...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> On gradlew: we can’t include those in the source distribution since it requires a binary jar file. There is an alternate implementation used in the bigtop project that avoid this issue. See comment on GEODE-826:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-826?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15112639#comment-15112639 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-826?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15112639#comment-15112639>
>
>
> Anthony
>
>> On Jan 22, 2016, at 1:35 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Ken for your feedback!
>>
>> 1. I too noticed it though I was able to run gradle directly from the src directory. I vaguely recollect discussion to exclude gradle binaries but not sure if build scripts fall in the same category. In any case, the documentation should be sync'ed with the dist.
>>
>> @Anthony: I do see gradlew(.bat) scripts excluded explicitly from the gemfire-assembly/build.gradle's distribution target so may be an easy fix if we go that route.
>>
>> - Nitin
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 4:14 PM
>> To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: Anthony Baker
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
>>
>> I’m installing the M1 release from the source distribution (.tar.gz) and have noted a couple
>> issues:
>>
>> 1. The gradle wrapper script, gradlew, is missing. I expected to find this script at the top level of the un-zipped archive, where it is when cloning the incubator-geode git repo. Building with this script rather than directly executing grade is the recommended procedure as shown in COMPILING.txt and in the “Geode in 5 minutes” section of README.md.
>>
>> 2. It was my understanding that Geode is targeted to idk 1.8. The “Geode in 5 minutes” in README.md specifies jdk1.7.75.
>>
>> Ken Howe
>>
>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is the first release for Apache Geode, version 1.0.0-incubating.M1. Thanks to all the community members to drive towards this first milestone!
>>>
>>> It fixes the following issues:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12318420&version=12334248
>>>
>>> *** Please download, test and vote by Wednesday, January 20th, 1700 hrs US Pacific.
>>>
>>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag):
>>> rel/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
>>>
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/rel/v1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
>>>
>>>
>>> Commit ID: e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
>>>
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=commit;h=e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
>>>
>>>
>>> Source and binary files:
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/geode/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1/
>>>
>>> For the first release, the documentation on how to install and use Apache Geode are hosted on pivotal.io:
>>> http://geode.docs.pivotal.io
>>>
>>>
>>> Maven staging repo:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeode-1000/
>>>
>>>
>>> Geode's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-geode/blob/release/1.0.0-incubating.M1/KEYS
>>>
>>>
>>> Release Key: pub 4096R/C72CFB64 2015-10-01
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Nitin & Anthony
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Anthony Baker <me...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
On gradlew: we can’t include those in the source distribution since it requires a binary jar file. There is an alternate implementation used in the bigtop project that avoid this issue. See comment on GEODE-826:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-826?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15112639#comment-15112639 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-826?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15112639#comment-15112639>
Anthony
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 1:35 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
>
> Thanks Ken for your feedback!
>
> 1. I too noticed it though I was able to run gradle directly from the src directory. I vaguely recollect discussion to exclude gradle binaries but not sure if build scripts fall in the same category. In any case, the documentation should be sync'ed with the dist.
>
> @Anthony: I do see gradlew(.bat) scripts excluded explicitly from the gemfire-assembly/build.gradle's distribution target so may be an easy fix if we go that route.
>
> - Nitin
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io>
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 4:14 PM
> To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Anthony Baker
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
>
> I’m installing the M1 release from the source distribution (.tar.gz) and have noted a couple
> issues:
>
> 1. The gradle wrapper script, gradlew, is missing. I expected to find this script at the top level of the un-zipped archive, where it is when cloning the incubator-geode git repo. Building with this script rather than directly executing grade is the recommended procedure as shown in COMPILING.txt and in the “Geode in 5 minutes” section of README.md.
>
> 2. It was my understanding that Geode is targeted to idk 1.8. The “Geode in 5 minutes” in README.md specifies jdk1.7.75.
>
> Ken Howe
>
>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
>>
>> This is the first release for Apache Geode, version 1.0.0-incubating.M1. Thanks to all the community members to drive towards this first milestone!
>>
>> It fixes the following issues:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12318420&version=12334248
>>
>> *** Please download, test and vote by Wednesday, January 20th, 1700 hrs US Pacific.
>>
>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag):
>> rel/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/rel/v1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
>>
>>
>> Commit ID: e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=commit;h=e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
>>
>>
>> Source and binary files:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/geode/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1/
>>
>> For the first release, the documentation on how to install and use Apache Geode are hosted on pivotal.io:
>> http://geode.docs.pivotal.io
>>
>>
>> Maven staging repo:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeode-1000/
>>
>>
>> Geode's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-geode/blob/release/1.0.0-incubating.M1/KEYS
>>
>>
>> Release Key: pub 4096R/C72CFB64 2015-10-01
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nitin & Anthony
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release -
v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io>.
Thanks Ken for your feedback!
1. I too noticed it though I was able to run gradle directly from the src directory. I vaguely recollect discussion to exclude gradle binaries but not sure if build scripts fall in the same category. In any case, the documentation should be sync'ed with the dist.
@Anthony: I do see gradlew(.bat) scripts excluded explicitly from the gemfire-assembly/build.gradle's distribution target so may be an easy fix if we go that route.
- Nitin
________________________________________
From: Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 4:14 PM
To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
Cc: Anthony Baker
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
I’m installing the M1 release from the source distribution (.tar.gz) and have noted a couple
issues:
1. The gradle wrapper script, gradlew, is missing. I expected to find this script at the top level of the un-zipped archive, where it is when cloning the incubator-geode git repo. Building with this script rather than directly executing grade is the recommended procedure as shown in COMPILING.txt and in the “Geode in 5 minutes” section of README.md.
2. It was my understanding that Geode is targeted to idk 1.8. The “Geode in 5 minutes” in README.md specifies jdk1.7.75.
Ken Howe
> On Jan 19, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
>
> This is the first release for Apache Geode, version 1.0.0-incubating.M1. Thanks to all the community members to drive towards this first milestone!
>
> It fixes the following issues:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12318420&version=12334248
>
> *** Please download, test and vote by Wednesday, January 20th, 1700 hrs US Pacific.
>
> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag):
> rel/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/rel/v1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
>
>
> Commit ID: e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=commit;h=e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
>
>
> Source and binary files:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/geode/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1/
>
> For the first release, the documentation on how to install and use Apache Geode are hosted on pivotal.io:
> http://geode.docs.pivotal.io
>
>
> Maven staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeode-1000/
>
>
> Geode's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-geode/blob/release/1.0.0-incubating.M1/KEYS
>
>
> Release Key: pub 4096R/C72CFB64 2015-10-01
>
> Thanks,
> Nitin & Anthony
>
>
> ________________________________
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io>.
I’m installing the M1 release from the source distribution (.tar.gz) and have noted a couple
issues:
1. The gradle wrapper script, gradlew, is missing. I expected to find this script at the top level of the un-zipped archive, where it is when cloning the incubator-geode git repo. Building with this script rather than directly executing grade is the recommended procedure as shown in COMPILING.txt and in the “Geode in 5 minutes” section of README.md.
2. It was my understanding that Geode is targeted to idk 1.8. The “Geode in 5 minutes” in README.md specifies jdk1.7.75.
Ken Howe
> On Jan 19, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
>
> This is the first release for Apache Geode, version 1.0.0-incubating.M1. Thanks to all the community members to drive towards this first milestone!
>
> It fixes the following issues:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12318420&version=12334248
>
> *** Please download, test and vote by Wednesday, January 20th, 1700 hrs US Pacific.
>
> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag):
> rel/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/rel/v1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
>
>
> Commit ID: e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=commit;h=e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
>
>
> Source and binary files:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/geode/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1/
>
> For the first release, the documentation on how to install and use Apache Geode are hosted on pivotal.io:
> http://geode.docs.pivotal.io
>
>
> Maven staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeode-1000/
>
>
> Geode's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-geode/blob/release/1.0.0-incubating.M1/KEYS
>
>
> Release Key: pub 4096R/C72CFB64 2015-10-01
>
> Thanks,
> Nitin & Anthony
>
>
> ________________________________
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Michael Stolz <ms...@pivotal.io>.
+1
--
Mike Stolz
Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Manager
Mobile: 631-835-4771
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 5:02 PM, William Markito <wm...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
>
> > This is the first release for Apache Geode, version 1.0.0-incubating.M1.
> > Thanks to all the community members to drive towards this first
> milestone!
> >
> > It fixes the following issues:
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12318420&version=12334248
> >
> > *** Please download, test and vote by Wednesday, January 20th, 1700 hrs
> US
> > Pacific.
> >
> > Note that we are voting upon the source (tag):
> > rel/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
> >
> >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/rel/v1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
> >
> >
> > Commit ID: e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
> >
> >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=commit;h=e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
> >
> >
> > Source and binary files:
> >
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/geode/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1/
> >
> > For the first release, the documentation on how to install and use Apache
> > Geode are hosted on pivotal.io:
> > http://geode.docs.pivotal.io
> >
> >
> > Maven staging repo:
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeode-1000/
> >
> >
> > Geode's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-geode/blob/release/1.0.0-incubating.M1/KEYS
> >
> >
> > Release Key: pub 4096R/C72CFB64 2015-10-01
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nitin & Anthony
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> ~/William
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by William Markito <wm...@pivotal.io>.
+1
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
> This is the first release for Apache Geode, version 1.0.0-incubating.M1.
> Thanks to all the community members to drive towards this first milestone!
>
> It fixes the following issues:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12318420&version=12334248
>
> *** Please download, test and vote by Wednesday, January 20th, 1700 hrs US
> Pacific.
>
> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag):
> rel/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
>
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/rel/v1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
>
>
> Commit ID: e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
>
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=commit;h=e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
>
>
> Source and binary files:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/geode/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1/
>
> For the first release, the documentation on how to install and use Apache
> Geode are hosted on pivotal.io:
> http://geode.docs.pivotal.io
>
>
> Maven staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeode-1000/
>
>
> Geode's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-geode/blob/release/1.0.0-incubating.M1/KEYS
>
>
> Release Key: pub 4096R/C72CFB64 2015-10-01
>
> Thanks,
> Nitin & Anthony
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
--
~/William
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>.
Let’s extend the VOTE deadline until Friday, January 22, 1400 US Pacific time for a full 72h review period. One of the best things are getting from this process (as evidenced by Niall’s work) is great feedback from our mentors and community.
Anthony
> On Jan 19, 2016, at 8:36 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Niall Pemberton
> <niall.pemberton@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
>>
>>> This is the first release for Apache Geode, version 1.0.0-incubating.M1.
>>> Thanks to all the community members to drive towards this first milestone!
>>>
>>> It fixes the following issues:
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12318420&version=12334248
>>>
>>> *** Please download, test and vote by Wednesday, January 20th, 1700 hrs US
>>> Pacific.
>>>
>>
>> Votes typically run for at least 3 days at the ASF to allow people time to
>> review/vote. Its not a fixed rule, but I think there needs to be a good
>> reason for reducing the time. I've had to stay up late in order to review
>> this before your deadline since I dont get time to do this in my $job. Just
>> my 2cents, but I think it would be more inclusive to stick to the normal 3
>> days.
>
> Super strong +1 to the above! Personally, there's not way I can review
> under this deadline (and I suspect neither could any of the mentors).
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> P.S. Although, arguably one way for podling to learn this is the hard way.
> If you don't get any binding votes under such a tight deadline you kind of
> get the idea of why votes like this in ASF run for at least 72 hours.
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>.
Yep, I’m trying to keep the branches more or less in sync. Roman made an earlier suggestion along these lines to always commit on develop and pull changes into the release branch. Once we agree on the specific changes to include in RC2 I’ll cherry-pick the commits.
Anthony
> On Jan 26, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
>
> Just noticed that three of the fixes related to LICENSE and NOTICE files have been put in 'develop' branch so at the time of the next RC, they'll have to be cherry-picked into the release ('1.0.0-incubating.M1' branch).
>
> Nitin
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Anilkumar Gingade <ag...@pivotal.io>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 3:04 PM
> To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
>
> Hi Nitin,
>
> Thanks for creating JIRA tickets capturing Niall's concerns/comments
> regarding the RC candidate...
>
> (GEODE-815) RC Feedback: Fix LICENSE and NOTICE files
> (GEODE-816) Source Distribution NOTICE needs updates
> (GEODE-817) Binary distribution NOTICE needs update
> (GEODE-818) RC Feedback: Fix Maven & pom dependencies
> (GEODE-823) RC Feedback: Fix build artifacts
>
> -Anil.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
>
>> Sure. One benefit of defining subtasks is that subtasks have separate
>> issue numbers for traceability, and we can track the complete feedback with
>> a few JIRAs. Other mechanisms of using labels or explicit issue linking are
>> additional steps with some overhead.
>>
>> Anyway, I've created a new version in JIRA, and created three issues
>> capturing Niall's feedback [1]. If I interpret the feedback correctly, only
>> the user PoV (pom dependencies) is optional; others are license-related and
>> high priority to address.
>>
>> Best,
>> Nitin
>> [1]
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=92&view=planning
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 12:56 PM
>> To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release -
>> v1.0.0-incubating.M1
>>
>> I think it makes sense to capture the feedback as individual issues (and
>> some have already been filed, e.g. GEODE-27 for pom correctness). Not all
>> the comments are release blockers and thus can be addressed over time.
>> Let’s wait for the discussion to complete so we can reach consensus around
>> next steps.
>>
>> Anthony
>>
>>> On Jan 20, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry have been away from my e-mails.
>>>
>>> @Roman, Greg, Mike: Yes, first time miss. Didn't see a timing guideline
>> but now we know! It makes sense to wait until Friday, and ask for 72 hrs on
>> the next RC VOTE.
>>>
>>> @Niall: Thanks a lot for your feedback! NOTICE and LICENSE files was
>> somewhat of a known issue given the first release (GEODE-610). Your e-mail
>> capture the gaps well. We'll start working on it.
>>>
>>> @Anthony: we should capture the gaps on JIRA - I'll create a few
>> top-level issues (Files, Build/ Gradle and Maven), and have the details
>> captured as subtasks. Suggestions?
>>>
>>> Have a broader question: Given that most of the findings so far are
>> related to license text/ config files not code or bugs, does it mean that
>> we'll have another RC (#2) cut from the same (1.0.0-incubating.M1) branch?
>> Will wait until end of the week to capture all the feedback.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Nitin
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: shaposhnik@gmail.com <sh...@gmail.com> on behalf of Roman
>> Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 11:13 AM
>>> To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release -
>> v1.0.0-incubating.M1
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Michael Stolz <ms...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>>>> What caused it to have such a short deadline? Did we do something to
>> cause
>>>> it to be so short or is that the default and we just didn't know to
>>>> override it somehow?
>>>
>>> That's a good question for a release manager. Nitin?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Roman.
>>>
>>> P.S. If I were to make a guess I'd say this is just because everybody's
>>> so excited to get the first set of bits out ;-)
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release -
v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io>.
Just noticed that three of the fixes related to LICENSE and NOTICE files have been put in 'develop' branch so at the time of the next RC, they'll have to be cherry-picked into the release ('1.0.0-incubating.M1' branch).
Nitin
________________________________________
From: Anilkumar Gingade <ag...@pivotal.io>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 3:04 PM
To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Hi Nitin,
Thanks for creating JIRA tickets capturing Niall's concerns/comments
regarding the RC candidate...
(GEODE-815) RC Feedback: Fix LICENSE and NOTICE files
(GEODE-816) Source Distribution NOTICE needs updates
(GEODE-817) Binary distribution NOTICE needs update
(GEODE-818) RC Feedback: Fix Maven & pom dependencies
(GEODE-823) RC Feedback: Fix build artifacts
-Anil.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
> Sure. One benefit of defining subtasks is that subtasks have separate
> issue numbers for traceability, and we can track the complete feedback with
> a few JIRAs. Other mechanisms of using labels or explicit issue linking are
> additional steps with some overhead.
>
> Anyway, I've created a new version in JIRA, and created three issues
> capturing Niall's feedback [1]. If I interpret the feedback correctly, only
> the user PoV (pom dependencies) is optional; others are license-related and
> high priority to address.
>
> Best,
> Nitin
> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=92&view=planning
> ________________________________________
> From: Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 12:56 PM
> To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release -
> v1.0.0-incubating.M1
>
> I think it makes sense to capture the feedback as individual issues (and
> some have already been filed, e.g. GEODE-27 for pom correctness). Not all
> the comments are release blockers and thus can be addressed over time.
> Let’s wait for the discussion to complete so we can reach consensus around
> next steps.
>
> Anthony
>
> > On Jan 20, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry have been away from my e-mails.
> >
> > @Roman, Greg, Mike: Yes, first time miss. Didn't see a timing guideline
> but now we know! It makes sense to wait until Friday, and ask for 72 hrs on
> the next RC VOTE.
> >
> > @Niall: Thanks a lot for your feedback! NOTICE and LICENSE files was
> somewhat of a known issue given the first release (GEODE-610). Your e-mail
> capture the gaps well. We'll start working on it.
> >
> > @Anthony: we should capture the gaps on JIRA - I'll create a few
> top-level issues (Files, Build/ Gradle and Maven), and have the details
> captured as subtasks. Suggestions?
> >
> > Have a broader question: Given that most of the findings so far are
> related to license text/ config files not code or bugs, does it mean that
> we'll have another RC (#2) cut from the same (1.0.0-incubating.M1) branch?
> Will wait until end of the week to capture all the feedback.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nitin
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: shaposhnik@gmail.com <sh...@gmail.com> on behalf of Roman
> Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 11:13 AM
> > To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release -
> v1.0.0-incubating.M1
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Michael Stolz <ms...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >> What caused it to have such a short deadline? Did we do something to
> cause
> >> it to be so short or is that the default and we just didn't know to
> >> override it somehow?
> >
> > That's a good question for a release manager. Nitin?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> > P.S. If I were to make a guess I'd say this is just because everybody's
> > so excited to get the first set of bits out ;-)
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Anilkumar Gingade <ag...@pivotal.io>.
Hi Nitin,
Thanks for creating JIRA tickets capturing Niall's concerns/comments
regarding the RC candidate...
(GEODE-815) RC Feedback: Fix LICENSE and NOTICE files
(GEODE-816) Source Distribution NOTICE needs updates
(GEODE-817) Binary distribution NOTICE needs update
(GEODE-818) RC Feedback: Fix Maven & pom dependencies
(GEODE-823) RC Feedback: Fix build artifacts
-Anil.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
> Sure. One benefit of defining subtasks is that subtasks have separate
> issue numbers for traceability, and we can track the complete feedback with
> a few JIRAs. Other mechanisms of using labels or explicit issue linking are
> additional steps with some overhead.
>
> Anyway, I've created a new version in JIRA, and created three issues
> capturing Niall's feedback [1]. If I interpret the feedback correctly, only
> the user PoV (pom dependencies) is optional; others are license-related and
> high priority to address.
>
> Best,
> Nitin
> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=92&view=planning
> ________________________________________
> From: Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 12:56 PM
> To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release -
> v1.0.0-incubating.M1
>
> I think it makes sense to capture the feedback as individual issues (and
> some have already been filed, e.g. GEODE-27 for pom correctness). Not all
> the comments are release blockers and thus can be addressed over time.
> Let’s wait for the discussion to complete so we can reach consensus around
> next steps.
>
> Anthony
>
> > On Jan 20, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry have been away from my e-mails.
> >
> > @Roman, Greg, Mike: Yes, first time miss. Didn't see a timing guideline
> but now we know! It makes sense to wait until Friday, and ask for 72 hrs on
> the next RC VOTE.
> >
> > @Niall: Thanks a lot for your feedback! NOTICE and LICENSE files was
> somewhat of a known issue given the first release (GEODE-610). Your e-mail
> capture the gaps well. We'll start working on it.
> >
> > @Anthony: we should capture the gaps on JIRA - I'll create a few
> top-level issues (Files, Build/ Gradle and Maven), and have the details
> captured as subtasks. Suggestions?
> >
> > Have a broader question: Given that most of the findings so far are
> related to license text/ config files not code or bugs, does it mean that
> we'll have another RC (#2) cut from the same (1.0.0-incubating.M1) branch?
> Will wait until end of the week to capture all the feedback.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nitin
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: shaposhnik@gmail.com <sh...@gmail.com> on behalf of Roman
> Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 11:13 AM
> > To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release -
> v1.0.0-incubating.M1
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Michael Stolz <ms...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >> What caused it to have such a short deadline? Did we do something to
> cause
> >> it to be so short or is that the default and we just didn't know to
> >> override it somehow?
> >
> > That's a good question for a release manager. Nitin?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> > P.S. If I were to make a guess I'd say this is just because everybody's
> > so excited to get the first set of bits out ;-)
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>.
> On Jan 20, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> I noticed the KEYS file is not part of the source distribution. Is that
> intentional?
>
Yes, the KEYS file is intentionally excluded.
> How are we planning on shipping/publishing the javadocs? They're not part
> of the binary distribution but will they be hosted somewhere?
>
There’s an open ticket on this, see GEODE-54 [1]. Seems reasonable to add them to the binary distribution and host them on http://geode.incubator.apache.org.
Anthony
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-54
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>.
I noticed the KEYS file is not part of the source distribution. Is that
intentional?
How are we planning on shipping/publishing the javadocs? They're not part
of the binary distribution but will they be hosted somewhere?
-Dan
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
> Sure. One benefit of defining subtasks is that subtasks have separate
> issue numbers for traceability, and we can track the complete feedback with
> a few JIRAs. Other mechanisms of using labels or explicit issue linking are
> additional steps with some overhead.
>
> Anyway, I've created a new version in JIRA, and created three issues
> capturing Niall's feedback [1]. If I interpret the feedback correctly, only
> the user PoV (pom dependencies) is optional; others are license-related and
> high priority to address.
>
> Best,
> Nitin
> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=92&view=planning
> ________________________________________
> From: Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 12:56 PM
> To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release -
> v1.0.0-incubating.M1
>
> I think it makes sense to capture the feedback as individual issues (and
> some have already been filed, e.g. GEODE-27 for pom correctness). Not all
> the comments are release blockers and thus can be addressed over time.
> Let’s wait for the discussion to complete so we can reach consensus around
> next steps.
>
> Anthony
>
> > On Jan 20, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry have been away from my e-mails.
> >
> > @Roman, Greg, Mike: Yes, first time miss. Didn't see a timing guideline
> but now we know! It makes sense to wait until Friday, and ask for 72 hrs on
> the next RC VOTE.
> >
> > @Niall: Thanks a lot for your feedback! NOTICE and LICENSE files was
> somewhat of a known issue given the first release (GEODE-610). Your e-mail
> capture the gaps well. We'll start working on it.
> >
> > @Anthony: we should capture the gaps on JIRA - I'll create a few
> top-level issues (Files, Build/ Gradle and Maven), and have the details
> captured as subtasks. Suggestions?
> >
> > Have a broader question: Given that most of the findings so far are
> related to license text/ config files not code or bugs, does it mean that
> we'll have another RC (#2) cut from the same (1.0.0-incubating.M1) branch?
> Will wait until end of the week to capture all the feedback.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nitin
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: shaposhnik@gmail.com <sh...@gmail.com> on behalf of Roman
> Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 11:13 AM
> > To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release -
> v1.0.0-incubating.M1
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Michael Stolz <ms...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >> What caused it to have such a short deadline? Did we do something to
> cause
> >> it to be so short or is that the default and we just didn't know to
> >> override it somehow?
> >
> > That's a good question for a release manager. Nitin?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> > P.S. If I were to make a guess I'd say this is just because everybody's
> > so excited to get the first set of bits out ;-)
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release -
v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io>.
Sure. One benefit of defining subtasks is that subtasks have separate issue numbers for traceability, and we can track the complete feedback with a few JIRAs. Other mechanisms of using labels or explicit issue linking are additional steps with some overhead.
Anyway, I've created a new version in JIRA, and created three issues capturing Niall's feedback [1]. If I interpret the feedback correctly, only the user PoV (pom dependencies) is optional; others are license-related and high priority to address.
Best,
Nitin
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=92&view=planning
________________________________________
From: Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 12:56 PM
To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
I think it makes sense to capture the feedback as individual issues (and some have already been filed, e.g. GEODE-27 for pom correctness). Not all the comments are release blockers and thus can be addressed over time. Let’s wait for the discussion to complete so we can reach consensus around next steps.
Anthony
> On Jan 20, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
>
> Sorry have been away from my e-mails.
>
> @Roman, Greg, Mike: Yes, first time miss. Didn't see a timing guideline but now we know! It makes sense to wait until Friday, and ask for 72 hrs on the next RC VOTE.
>
> @Niall: Thanks a lot for your feedback! NOTICE and LICENSE files was somewhat of a known issue given the first release (GEODE-610). Your e-mail capture the gaps well. We'll start working on it.
>
> @Anthony: we should capture the gaps on JIRA - I'll create a few top-level issues (Files, Build/ Gradle and Maven), and have the details captured as subtasks. Suggestions?
>
> Have a broader question: Given that most of the findings so far are related to license text/ config files not code or bugs, does it mean that we'll have another RC (#2) cut from the same (1.0.0-incubating.M1) branch? Will wait until end of the week to capture all the feedback.
>
> Thanks,
> Nitin
>
> ________________________________________
> From: shaposhnik@gmail.com <sh...@gmail.com> on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 11:13 AM
> To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Michael Stolz <ms...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> What caused it to have such a short deadline? Did we do something to cause
>> it to be so short or is that the default and we just didn't know to
>> override it somehow?
>
> That's a good question for a release manager. Nitin?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> P.S. If I were to make a guess I'd say this is just because everybody's
> so excited to get the first set of bits out ;-)
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>.
I think it makes sense to capture the feedback as individual issues (and some have already been filed, e.g. GEODE-27 for pom correctness). Not all the comments are release blockers and thus can be addressed over time. Let’s wait for the discussion to complete so we can reach consensus around next steps.
Anthony
> On Jan 20, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
>
> Sorry have been away from my e-mails.
>
> @Roman, Greg, Mike: Yes, first time miss. Didn't see a timing guideline but now we know! It makes sense to wait until Friday, and ask for 72 hrs on the next RC VOTE.
>
> @Niall: Thanks a lot for your feedback! NOTICE and LICENSE files was somewhat of a known issue given the first release (GEODE-610). Your e-mail capture the gaps well. We'll start working on it.
>
> @Anthony: we should capture the gaps on JIRA - I'll create a few top-level issues (Files, Build/ Gradle and Maven), and have the details captured as subtasks. Suggestions?
>
> Have a broader question: Given that most of the findings so far are related to license text/ config files not code or bugs, does it mean that we'll have another RC (#2) cut from the same (1.0.0-incubating.M1) branch? Will wait until end of the week to capture all the feedback.
>
> Thanks,
> Nitin
>
> ________________________________________
> From: shaposhnik@gmail.com <sh...@gmail.com> on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 11:13 AM
> To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Michael Stolz <ms...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> What caused it to have such a short deadline? Did we do something to cause
>> it to be so short or is that the default and we just didn't know to
>> override it somehow?
>
> That's a good question for a release manager. Nitin?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> P.S. If I were to make a guess I'd say this is just because everybody's
> so excited to get the first set of bits out ;-)
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release -
v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io>.
Sorry have been away from my e-mails.
@Roman, Greg, Mike: Yes, first time miss. Didn't see a timing guideline but now we know! It makes sense to wait until Friday, and ask for 72 hrs on the next RC VOTE.
@Niall: Thanks a lot for your feedback! NOTICE and LICENSE files was somewhat of a known issue given the first release (GEODE-610). Your e-mail capture the gaps well. We'll start working on it.
@Anthony: we should capture the gaps on JIRA - I'll create a few top-level issues (Files, Build/ Gradle and Maven), and have the details captured as subtasks. Suggestions?
Have a broader question: Given that most of the findings so far are related to license text/ config files not code or bugs, does it mean that we'll have another RC (#2) cut from the same (1.0.0-incubating.M1) branch? Will wait until end of the week to capture all the feedback.
Thanks,
Nitin
________________________________________
From: shaposhnik@gmail.com <sh...@gmail.com> on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 11:13 AM
To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Michael Stolz <ms...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> What caused it to have such a short deadline? Did we do something to cause
> it to be so short or is that the default and we just didn't know to
> override it somehow?
That's a good question for a release manager. Nitin?
Thanks,
Roman.
P.S. If I were to make a guess I'd say this is just because everybody's
so excited to get the first set of bits out ;-)
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Michael Stolz <ms...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> What caused it to have such a short deadline? Did we do something to cause
> it to be so short or is that the default and we just didn't know to
> override it somehow?
That's a good question for a release manager. Nitin?
Thanks,
Roman.
P.S. If I were to make a guess I'd say this is just because everybody's
so excited to get the first set of bits out ;-)
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Greg Chase <gr...@gregchase.com>.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Michael Stolz <ms...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> What caused it to have such a short deadline? Did we do something to cause
> it to be so short or is that the default and we just didn't know to
> override it somehow?
>
>
Why we're still "incubating".
Its our first candidate for our first release. We're learning to walk :)
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 for extending the vote to 72 hours (is this possible or do we have to
> end this vote and start a new one?)
You can definitely extend the vote without restarting it. 72 hours
should be viewed as a minimum especially for a new release stream. --
justin
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org>.
+1 for extending the vote to 72 hours (is this possible or do we have to
end this vote and start a new one?)
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Michael Stolz <ms...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> What caused it to have such a short deadline? Did we do something to cause
> it to be so short or is that the default and we just didn't know to
> override it somehow?
>
> --
> Mike Stolz
> Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Manager
> Mobile: 631-835-4771
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Niall Pemberton
> > <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
> > >
> > >> This is the first release for Apache Geode, version
> 1.0.0-incubating.M1.
> > >> Thanks to all the community members to drive towards this first
> > milestone!
> > >>
> > >> It fixes the following issues:
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12318420&version=12334248
> > >>
> > >> *** Please download, test and vote by Wednesday, January 20th, 1700
> hrs
> > US
> > >> Pacific.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Votes typically run for at least 3 days at the ASF to allow people time
> > to
> > > review/vote. Its not a fixed rule, but I think there needs to be a good
> > > reason for reducing the time. I've had to stay up late in order to
> review
> > > this before your deadline since I dont get time to do this in my $job.
> > Just
> > > my 2cents, but I think it would be more inclusive to stick to the
> normal
> > 3
> > > days.
> >
> > Super strong +1 to the above! Personally, there's not way I can review
> > under this deadline (and I suspect neither could any of the mentors).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> > P.S. Although, arguably one way for podling to learn this is the hard
> way.
> > If you don't get any binding votes under such a tight deadline you kind
> of
> > get the idea of why votes like this in ASF run for at least 72 hours.
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Michael Stolz <ms...@pivotal.io>.
What caused it to have such a short deadline? Did we do something to cause
it to be so short or is that the default and we just didn't know to
override it somehow?
--
Mike Stolz
Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Manager
Mobile: 631-835-4771
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Niall Pemberton
> <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
> >
> >> This is the first release for Apache Geode, version 1.0.0-incubating.M1.
> >> Thanks to all the community members to drive towards this first
> milestone!
> >>
> >> It fixes the following issues:
> >>
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12318420&version=12334248
> >>
> >> *** Please download, test and vote by Wednesday, January 20th, 1700 hrs
> US
> >> Pacific.
> >>
> >
> > Votes typically run for at least 3 days at the ASF to allow people time
> to
> > review/vote. Its not a fixed rule, but I think there needs to be a good
> > reason for reducing the time. I've had to stay up late in order to review
> > this before your deadline since I dont get time to do this in my $job.
> Just
> > my 2cents, but I think it would be more inclusive to stick to the normal
> 3
> > days.
>
> Super strong +1 to the above! Personally, there's not way I can review
> under this deadline (and I suspect neither could any of the mentors).
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> P.S. Although, arguably one way for podling to learn this is the hard way.
> If you don't get any binding votes under such a tight deadline you kind of
> get the idea of why votes like this in ASF run for at least 72 hours.
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Niall Pemberton
<ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
>
>> This is the first release for Apache Geode, version 1.0.0-incubating.M1.
>> Thanks to all the community members to drive towards this first milestone!
>>
>> It fixes the following issues:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12318420&version=12334248
>>
>> *** Please download, test and vote by Wednesday, January 20th, 1700 hrs US
>> Pacific.
>>
>
> Votes typically run for at least 3 days at the ASF to allow people time to
> review/vote. Its not a fixed rule, but I think there needs to be a good
> reason for reducing the time. I've had to stay up late in order to review
> this before your deadline since I dont get time to do this in my $job. Just
> my 2cents, but I think it would be more inclusive to stick to the normal 3
> days.
Super strong +1 to the above! Personally, there's not way I can review
under this deadline (and I suspect neither could any of the mentors).
Thanks,
Roman.
P.S. Although, arguably one way for podling to learn this is the hard way.
If you don't get any binding votes under such a tight deadline you kind of
get the idea of why votes like this in ASF run for at least 72 hours.
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (Incubating) first Milestone release - v1.0.0-incubating.M1
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io> wrote:
> This is the first release for Apache Geode, version 1.0.0-incubating.M1.
> Thanks to all the community members to drive towards this first milestone!
>
> It fixes the following issues:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12318420&version=12334248
>
> *** Please download, test and vote by Wednesday, January 20th, 1700 hrs US
> Pacific.
>
Votes typically run for at least 3 days at the ASF to allow people time to
review/vote. Its not a fixed rule, but I think there needs to be a good
reason for reducing the time. I've had to stay up late in order to review
this before your deadline since I dont get time to do this in my $job. Just
my 2cents, but I think it would be more inclusive to stick to the normal 3
days.
Niall
>
> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag):
> rel/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
>
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/rel/v1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1
>
>
> Commit ID: e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
>
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-geode.git;a=commit;h=e5a7b9aaa82d4c0a04e41febfd515056c4669001
>
>
> Source and binary files:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/geode/1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC1/
>
> For the first release, the documentation on how to install and use Apache
> Geode are hosted on pivotal.io:
> http://geode.docs.pivotal.io
>
>
> Maven staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeode-1000/
>
>
> Geode's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-geode/blob/release/1.0.0-incubating.M1/KEYS
>
>
> Release Key: pub 4096R/C72CFB64 2015-10-01
>
> Thanks,
> Nitin & Anthony
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>