Re: Gearing up for 1.0.0 (cut-off of the branch)

[Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>]

Guys,

I have noticed that branch-1.0 is now having these three committs:

11dc343 BIGTOP-1893: Compilation of hadoop-yarn-client failed
edc881d BIGTOP-1902: typo in bigtop-deploy/vm/vagrant-puppet-vm/vagrantconfig.yaml
885cd8f BIGTOP-1896. bigtop_toolchain broken bei ant update

Now I would have to update CHANGES.txt and RELEASE notes for both master and
the branch. To me, those weren't that critical to include into the release,
but I guess it makes no harm. Any other changes we have to hold the release
for?

Thanks,
  Cos

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:14AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> Ok, master is unlocked for 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT development
> I have also pushed branch-1.0 that has all the bits for 1.0 RC, but I don't
> have time to finish RC publishing up right now - will try to do it from the
> train, but who knows if I will have any connection there.
> 
> If anyone can pick up where I left-off - it'd be great: I am really trying to
> get on my damn vacation ;) If not - I will try to find a bit of time next week
> for this.
> 
> Thanks all for your help,
>   Cos
> 
> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 09:56AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > Indeed. 
> > 
> > The one hurdle I am facing though is that with BIGTOP-1833 getting pushed to
> > the master (which I normally would appreciate ;) I have to fiddle with my
> > local branches as they already had a commit for this fix. Now, rebasing it
> > locally presents an issue where I need to fix some unpleasant conflicts in... 
> > 
> > Oh well, it will be done in a bit.
> >   Cos
> > 
> > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:37PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > > I've committed the BIGTOP-1833 patch.
> > > It's so exciting that we're at the moment ready to release bigtop 1.0.
> > > Please ping me if any help needed for release.
> > > 
> > > Evans
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 2015-05-29 17:52 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> > > 
> > > > Guys,
> > > >
> > > > I have made all preparations for 1.0 RC and changed everything we need to
> > > > move
> > > > to 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT in the master.
> > > >
> > > > However, because BIGTOP-1833 hasn't been reviewed yet, I evidently haven't
> > > > pushed this change and other commits to the master nor branch-1.0. I would
> > > > unblock me immediately if someone can review BIGTOP-1833 changes. Then
> > > > patch
> > > > is rather trivial and I have tested it to make sure that the packages are
> > > > produced.
> > > >
> > > > I'd love to switch off to the vacation mode by the end of the day today but
> > > > have to wrap up the RC process (at least the branch preparation part)
> > > > before
> > > > that. So if someone in Europe (during the day here) or later in NA can do
> > > > this
> > > > at your early convenience - it'd be just great!
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance!
> > > >   Cos
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 04:03PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 03:11PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > > > > Also, working on BIGTOP-1851 right now. Please pardon the delay, I was
> > > > sick
> > > > > > over the weekend.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks Andrew - hopefully are doing better now!
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cool, I went over to BIGTOP-1615 and it's already resolved.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As for BIGTOP-1827, if it's just a package naming problem we can just
> > > > > > > rename it, right? See my comment on the issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Guys
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I think we are in the good shape to cut-off 1.0 branch tonight. I
> > > > have ran
> > > > > > >> full stack build on Ubuntu and everything is building fine now. Of
> > > > course
> > > > > > >> some
> > > > > > >> testing needs to be done ;)
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> One last unresolved blocker is BIGTOP-1827. If I don't hear from the
> > > > > > >> Tachyon component's maintainers I will have to remove this from the
> > > > > > >> release
> > > > > > >> 1.0 because the packages are broken and we can release them like
> > > > this.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> BIGTOP-1615 (another blocker) is in PA state, so if anyone can take
> > > > a
> > > > > > >> look -
> > > > > > >> it'd be great!
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thanks!
> > > > > > >>   Cos
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    - Andy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > > > Hein
> > > > > > > (via Tom White)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >    - Andy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > > > Hein
> > > > > > (via Tom White)
> > > > >
> > > >
> 
> 

Re: Gearing up for 1.0.0 (cut-off of the branch)

[Evans Ye <ev...@apache.org>]

I've add a section in "how to contribute" to describe how to commit patch
in both master and release branch.

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BIGTOP/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ForCommitters:howtocommitapatchinbothmasterandreleasebranch

Feel free to update/correct it directly. :)

Thanks,
Evans





2015-07-18 13:21 GMT+08:00 Evans Ye <ev...@apache.org>:

> OK, then we better have this updated on Committer's wiki.
> Olaf's workflow.sh is a good demonstration, just need to indicate which
> the source branch is.
>
> I just discovered that my cwiki account got locked so I'm currently
> approaching apache infra.
> Will update if no one before me. :)
>
>
> 2015-07-16 6:14 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
>
>> Yup, I believe this is wht I am saying. The fix-branch (in this particular
>> case, as new features shouldn't be added to old releases, IMO) should be
>> derived from the "least common denominator" branch to make both merges as
>> seamless as possible.
>>
>> Cos
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 02:29AM, Evans Ye wrote:
>> > Since I'm one of the "author" of the current 1.0 branch, I'd like to
>> join
>> > the discussion and make sure whether I get it right.
>> >
>> > It looks like the the proposed approach is to replace cherry-pick by
>> > creating a feature branch and merge that branch into branches we'd like
>> to
>> > have the fix.
>> >
>> > If we're going this approach, then the feature branch should be derived
>> > from the targeted back port branch. For example, if patch A is getting
>> in
>> > both branch-1.0 and master, then we should create a feature branch from
>> 1.0
>> > name branch-A, and add patch A on top of branch-A, and then merge
>> branch-A
>> > into branch-1.0 and master, respectively.
>> >
>> > Basically, the above is what I concluded from your discussion. Is this
>> the
>> > same as what you're thinking?
>> >
>> >
>> > 2015-07-15 22:34 GMT+08:00 Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>:
>> >
>> > > Cos,
>> > >
>> > > > Evidently, "is not mutable" and "shouldn't be moved" are two very
>> > > different
>> > > > properties.
>> > >
>> > > Of course, you are right.
>> > >
>> > > > What github does for their releases is of no relevance to us,.
>> > >
>> > > You are right, but I would like to mention we use this in bigtop.mk,
>> too.
>> > >
>> > > HUE_SITE=https://github.com/cloudera/hue/archive
>> > > DATAFU_SITE=https://github.com/linkedin/datafu/archive
>> > > TACHYON_SITE=https://github.com/amplab/tachyon/archive
>>
>> > >
>> > > I would pledge for putting an tag release-1.0.0  on the release
>> commit .
>> > > Like we did before.
>> > >
>> > > >> I doubt you can move a tag once it is pushed to the apache
>> repository
>> > > (since
>> > > >> a force push is not possible, too), but we may try ;-)
>> > > >
>> > > > Tag is a pointer to a git object. The pointer could be deleted,
>> > > recreated and
>> > > > pushed again: no force-push is needed for that.
>> > >
>> > > That is evidently not true:
>> > >
>> > > $ git tag -d olaf
>> > > Deleted tag 'olaf' (was 6fd647e)
>> > > $ git tag olaf HEAD~3
>> > > $ git push lr --tags
>> > > ...
>> > >  ! [rejected]        olaf -> olaf (already exists)
>> > > error: failed to push some refs to '.....'
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > Besides, force-push isn't disabled on Apache repos (except for
>> master
>> > > branch).
>> > >
>> > > > Yes, we can do whatever we want with the branches.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Didn't know that. Now I am beginning to understand your point ...
>> > >
>> > > I wrote an example workflow  (see attachement) . I would propose to
>> add
>> > > this example (if it is correct)  to the developer guidelines in the
>> wiki.
>> > >
>> > > Management summary: We should be careful not to apply changes
>> affecting
>> > > both release and master directly to one of these branches. Use a fix
>> branch
>> > > instead and merge it to both master and release branch.
>> > >
>> > > Using github pull request seems equivalent to this workflow, btw.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks all for your patience, over and out.
>> > >    Olaf
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>>
>

Re: Gearing up for 1.0.0 (cut-off of the branch)

[Evans Ye <ev...@apache.org>]

OK, then we better have this updated on Committer's wiki.
Olaf's workflow.sh is a good demonstration, just need to indicate which the
source branch is.

I just discovered that my cwiki account got locked so I'm currently
approaching apache infra.
Will update if no one before me. :)


2015-07-16 6:14 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:

> Yup, I believe this is wht I am saying. The fix-branch (in this particular
> case, as new features shouldn't be added to old releases, IMO) should be
> derived from the "least common denominator" branch to make both merges as
> seamless as possible.
>
> Cos
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 02:29AM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > Since I'm one of the "author" of the current 1.0 branch, I'd like to join
> > the discussion and make sure whether I get it right.
> >
> > It looks like the the proposed approach is to replace cherry-pick by
> > creating a feature branch and merge that branch into branches we'd like
> to
> > have the fix.
> >
> > If we're going this approach, then the feature branch should be derived
> > from the targeted back port branch. For example, if patch A is getting in
> > both branch-1.0 and master, then we should create a feature branch from
> 1.0
> > name branch-A, and add patch A on top of branch-A, and then merge
> branch-A
> > into branch-1.0 and master, respectively.
> >
> > Basically, the above is what I concluded from your discussion. Is this
> the
> > same as what you're thinking?
> >
> >
> > 2015-07-15 22:34 GMT+08:00 Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>:
> >
> > > Cos,
> > >
> > > > Evidently, "is not mutable" and "shouldn't be moved" are two very
> > > different
> > > > properties.
> > >
> > > Of course, you are right.
> > >
> > > > What github does for their releases is of no relevance to us,.
> > >
> > > You are right, but I would like to mention we use this in bigtop.mk,
> too.
> > >
> > > HUE_SITE=https://github.com/cloudera/hue/archive
> > > DATAFU_SITE=https://github.com/linkedin/datafu/archive
> > > TACHYON_SITE=https://github.com/amplab/tachyon/archive
> > >
> > > I would pledge for putting an tag release-1.0.0  on the release commit
> .
> > > Like we did before.
> > >
> > > >> I doubt you can move a tag once it is pushed to the apache
> repository
> > > (since
> > > >> a force push is not possible, too), but we may try ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Tag is a pointer to a git object. The pointer could be deleted,
> > > recreated and
> > > > pushed again: no force-push is needed for that.
> > >
> > > That is evidently not true:
> > >
> > > $ git tag -d olaf
> > > Deleted tag 'olaf' (was 6fd647e)
> > > $ git tag olaf HEAD~3
> > > $ git push lr --tags
> > > ...
> > >  ! [rejected]        olaf -> olaf (already exists)
> > > error: failed to push some refs to '.....'
> > >
> > >
> > > > Besides, force-push isn't disabled on Apache repos (except for master
> > > branch).
> > >
> > > > Yes, we can do whatever we want with the branches.
> > >
> > >
> > > Didn't know that. Now I am beginning to understand your point ...
> > >
> > > I wrote an example workflow  (see attachement) . I would propose to add
> > > this example (if it is correct)  to the developer guidelines in the
> wiki.
> > >
> > > Management summary: We should be careful not to apply changes affecting
> > > both release and master directly to one of these branches. Use a fix
> branch
> > > instead and merge it to both master and release branch.
> > >
> > > Using github pull request seems equivalent to this workflow, btw.
> > >
> > > Thanks all for your patience, over and out.
> > >    Olaf
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>

Re: Gearing up for 1.0.0 (cut-off of the branch)

[Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>]

Yup, I believe this is wht I am saying. The fix-branch (in this particular
case, as new features shouldn't be added to old releases, IMO) should be
derived from the "least common denominator" branch to make both merges as
seamless as possible.

Cos

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 02:29AM, Evans Ye wrote:
> Since I'm one of the "author" of the current 1.0 branch, I'd like to join
> the discussion and make sure whether I get it right.
> 
> It looks like the the proposed approach is to replace cherry-pick by
> creating a feature branch and merge that branch into branches we'd like to
> have the fix.
> 
> If we're going this approach, then the feature branch should be derived
> from the targeted back port branch. For example, if patch A is getting in
> both branch-1.0 and master, then we should create a feature branch from 1.0
> name branch-A, and add patch A on top of branch-A, and then merge branch-A
> into branch-1.0 and master, respectively.
> 
> Basically, the above is what I concluded from your discussion. Is this the
> same as what you're thinking?
> 
> 
> 2015-07-15 22:34 GMT+08:00 Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>:
> 
> > Cos,
> >
> > > Evidently, "is not mutable" and "shouldn't be moved" are two very
> > different
> > > properties.
> >
> > Of course, you are right.
> >
> > > What github does for their releases is of no relevance to us,.
> >
> > You are right, but I would like to mention we use this in bigtop.mk, too.
> >
> > HUE_SITE=https://github.com/cloudera/hue/archive
> > DATAFU_SITE=https://github.com/linkedin/datafu/archive
> > TACHYON_SITE=https://github.com/amplab/tachyon/archive
> >
> > I would pledge for putting an tag release-1.0.0  on the release commit .
> > Like we did before.
> >
> > >> I doubt you can move a tag once it is pushed to the apache repository
> > (since
> > >> a force push is not possible, too), but we may try ;-)
> > >
> > > Tag is a pointer to a git object. The pointer could be deleted,
> > recreated and
> > > pushed again: no force-push is needed for that.
> >
> > That is evidently not true:
> >
> > $ git tag -d olaf
> > Deleted tag 'olaf' (was 6fd647e)
> > $ git tag olaf HEAD~3
> > $ git push lr --tags
> > ...
> >  ! [rejected]        olaf -> olaf (already exists)
> > error: failed to push some refs to '.....'
> >
> >
> > > Besides, force-push isn't disabled on Apache repos (except for master
> > branch).
> >
> > > Yes, we can do whatever we want with the branches.
> >
> >
> > Didn't know that. Now I am beginning to understand your point ...
> >
> > I wrote an example workflow  (see attachement) . I would propose to add
> > this example (if it is correct)  to the developer guidelines in the wiki.
> >
> > Management summary: We should be careful not to apply changes affecting
> > both release and master directly to one of these branches. Use a fix branch
> > instead and merge it to both master and release branch.
> >
> > Using github pull request seems equivalent to this workflow, btw.
> >
> > Thanks all for your patience, over and out.
> >    Olaf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Re: Gearing up for 1.0.0 (cut-off of the branch)

[Evans Ye <ev...@apache.org>]

Since I'm one of the "author" of the current 1.0 branch, I'd like to join
the discussion and make sure whether I get it right.

It looks like the the proposed approach is to replace cherry-pick by
creating a feature branch and merge that branch into branches we'd like to
have the fix.

If we're going this approach, then the feature branch should be derived
from the targeted back port branch. For example, if patch A is getting in
both branch-1.0 and master, then we should create a feature branch from 1.0
name branch-A, and add patch A on top of branch-A, and then merge branch-A
into branch-1.0 and master, respectively.

Basically, the above is what I concluded from your discussion. Is this the
same as what you're thinking?


2015-07-15 22:34 GMT+08:00 Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>:

> Cos,
>
> > Evidently, "is not mutable" and "shouldn't be moved" are two very
> different
> > properties.
>
> Of course, you are right.
>
> > What github does for their releases is of no relevance to us,.
>
> You are right, but I would like to mention we use this in bigtop.mk, too.
>
> HUE_SITE=https://github.com/cloudera/hue/archive
> DATAFU_SITE=https://github.com/linkedin/datafu/archive
> TACHYON_SITE=https://github.com/amplab/tachyon/archive
>
> I would pledge for putting an tag release-1.0.0  on the release commit .
> Like we did before.
>
> >> I doubt you can move a tag once it is pushed to the apache repository
> (since
> >> a force push is not possible, too), but we may try ;-)
> >
> > Tag is a pointer to a git object. The pointer could be deleted,
> recreated and
> > pushed again: no force-push is needed for that.
>
> That is evidently not true:
>
> $ git tag -d olaf
> Deleted tag 'olaf' (was 6fd647e)
> $ git tag olaf HEAD~3
> $ git push lr --tags
> ...
>  ! [rejected]        olaf -> olaf (already exists)
> error: failed to push some refs to '.....'
>
>
> > Besides, force-push isn't disabled on Apache repos (except for master
> branch).
>
> > Yes, we can do whatever we want with the branches.
>
>
> Didn't know that. Now I am beginning to understand your point ...
>
> I wrote an example workflow  (see attachement) . I would propose to add
> this example (if it is correct)  to the developer guidelines in the wiki.
>
> Management summary: We should be careful not to apply changes affecting
> both release and master directly to one of these branches. Use a fix branch
> instead and merge it to both master and release branch.
>
> Using github pull request seems equivalent to this workflow, btw.
>
> Thanks all for your patience, over and out.
>    Olaf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Gearing up for 1.0.0 (cut-off of the branch)

[Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>]

Cos,

> Evidently, "is not mutable" and "shouldn't be moved" are two very different
> properties.

Of course, you are right.

> What github does for their releases is of no relevance to us,.

You are right, but I would like to mention we use this in bigtop.mk, too.

HUE_SITE=https://github.com/cloudera/hue/archive
DATAFU_SITE=https://github.com/linkedin/datafu/archive
TACHYON_SITE=https://github.com/amplab/tachyon/archive

I would pledge for putting an tag release-1.0.0  on the release commit . Like we did before.

>> I doubt you can move a tag once it is pushed to the apache repository (since
>> a force push is not possible, too), but we may try ;-)
> 
> Tag is a pointer to a git object. The pointer could be deleted, recreated and
> pushed again: no force-push is needed for that.

That is evidently not true:

$ git tag -d olaf
Deleted tag 'olaf' (was 6fd647e)
$ git tag olaf HEAD~3
$ git push lr --tags
...
 ! [rejected]        olaf -> olaf (already exists)
error: failed to push some refs to '.....'


> Besides, force-push isn't disabled on Apache repos (except for master branch).

> Yes, we can do whatever we want with the branches.


Didn't know that. Now I am beginning to understand your point ...

I wrote an example workflow  (see attachement) . I would propose to add this example (if it is correct)  to the developer guidelines in the wiki.

Management summary: We should be careful not to apply changes affecting both release and master directly to one of these branches. Use a fix branch instead and merge it to both master and release branch.

Using github pull request seems equivalent to this workflow, btw.

Thanks all for your patience, over and out.
   Olaf

Re: Gearing up for 1.0.0 (cut-off of the branch)

[Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:26PM, Olaf Flebbe wrote:
> Cos,
> 
> > I didn't bring up the release or their tags anywhere in my email, so I am not
> > sure what's your point here... Besides, with git we aren't relying on release
> > tags as they are mutable; instead we are relying on commit SHA1.
> 
> A git tag is not mutable and should not be moved, since it is an alias for a
> commit hash of a release. For instance github makes release based on tags
> only: For instance see: https://github.com/apache/bigtop/releases,

Evidently, "is not mutable" and "shouldn't be moved" are two very different
properties. What github does for their releases is of no relevance to us.

> I doubt you can move a tag once it is pushed to the apache repository (since
> a force push is not possible, too), but we may try ;-)

Tag is a pointer to a git object. The pointer could be deleted, recreated and
pushed again: no force-push is needed for that. Besides, force-push isn't
disabled on Apache repos (except for master branch).

> > Branches are cheap and easy to clean - once the merge is done the branch will
> > need to be deleted. 2nd merge you're referring to is a non fast-forward
> 
> Sure, branches are super-cheap to create. But are we really allowed to
> destroy them later with git push --prune on an ASF git repo ?

Yes, we can do whatever we want with the branches.

> > commit, which is annoying in a sense, but also helps to track the history of
> > the changes and where there are coming from. And yes - cherry-picking is
> > absolutely worst because it changes a commit's SHA1 and makes it impossible
> > for automatic tooling to trace the flow of the changes.
> 
> 
> I admit that is not easy to understand the flow of information of a
> cherry-pick, but it seems not impossible to trace it. At least git itself
> can do it correctly, since you can merge branches automatically later where
> you did single cherry-picks between them before. I would refrain from doing
> any non-automatic cherry-picks, that's true evil.
> 
> What tool is potentially broken with respect to cherry-picks?

Actually any visualization tools like gitk. Or

    % git cherry -v
    
would show contextually equivalent commits as different on different branches
because their SHAs would be different. And so on.

> WHat do you suggest specifically to improve commiting on both master and
> to-be-released branches?

I suggest, again, to follow the model from above URL and avoid cherry-picking
if possible. It's coming from a lot of pain I am enduring in every new company
when they start using git without understanding the mechanics behind it.
Cherry-picking is a broken practice unleashed on many ASF projects by Hadoop
folks misusing git faculties. Unfortunately, those practices proved to be
quite sticky like pretty much any other bad habit...

It is too late to safe branch-1.0, but perhaps we should try this in the
future release.

Cos

Re: Gearing up for 1.0.0 (cut-off of the branch)

[Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>]

Cos,


> I didn't bring up the release or their tags anywhere in my email, so I am not
> sure what's your point here... Besides, with git we aren't relying on release
> tags as they are mutable; instead we are relying on commit SHA1.
> 


A git tag is not mutable and should not be moved, since it is an alias for a commit hash of a release. For instance github makes release based on tags only: For instance see: https://github.com/apache/bigtop/releases,

I doubt you can move a tag once it is pushed to the apache repository (since a force push is not possible, too), but we may try ;-)

> 
> Branches are cheap and easy to clean - once the merge is done the branch will
> need to be deleted. 2nd merge you're referring to is a non fast-forward

Sure, branches are super-cheap to create. But are we really allowed to destroy them later with git push --prune on an ASF git repo ?

> commit, which is annoying in a sense, but also helps to track the history of
> the changes and where there are coming from. And yes - cherry-picking is
> absolutely worst because it changes a commit's SHA1 and makes it impossible
> for automatic tooling to trace the flow of the changes.


I admit that is not easy to understand the flow of information of a cherry-pick, but it seems not impossible to trace it. At least git itself can do it correctly, since you can merge branches automatically later where you did single cherry-picks between them before. I would refrain from doing any non-automatic cherry-picks, that's true evil.

What tool is potentially broken with respect to cherry-picks?

WHat do you suggest specifically to improve commiting on both master and to-be-released branches?

Olaf

Re: Gearing up for 1.0.0 (cut-off of the branch)

[Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 09:44PM, Olaf Flebbe wrote:
> Cos,
> 
> As far as I understand a release is done, when a tag like release-1.0  is
> set, not when a branch is created. Since there is no release-1.0 tag, a
> release is not done. And the relase has still has no SHA, since we have no
> tag associated.

I didn't bring up the release or their tags anywhere in my email, so I am not
sure what's your point here... Besides, with git we aren't relying on release
tags as they are mutable; instead we are relying on commit SHA1.

> The merging of hotfix branches (suggested in the paper you mentioning) will
> do more harm to the log than a cherry-picking: On the release branch you
> will get two commits: The fix itself and a merge commit. With cherry-picking
> you will get only the fix itself.
> 
> The hotfix branch does make sense when you'll need more than one commit to
> fix a issue on a release. But since we use the one-JIRA-one-Commit model, it
> does not make sense to create a branch for every commit needed on a release
> branch. We would be polluting the repository with stale branches, since
> we'll have to push each commit as a branch to the official repository. We
> cannot remove them later, even when merged completly. So I would say -1 to
> hotfix branches in Bigtop.

Branches are cheap and easy to clean - once the merge is done the branch will
need to be deleted. 2nd merge you're referring to is a non fast-forward
commit, which is annoying in a sense, but also helps to track the history of
the changes and where there are coming from. And yes - cherry-picking is
absolutely worst because it changes a commit's SHA1 and makes it impossible
for automatic tooling to trace the flow of the changes.

    Cos

> Cherry-picking is valid if you'll need to fix releases through small changes
> (but only then). The fixes on bigtop where small....
> 
> Olaf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Am 14.07.2015 um 21:15 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> > 
> > I have committed BIGTOP-1923 to the master and cherry-picked it to the branch.
> > 
> > The reason I did the cherry-picking is because there was a number of other
> > commits cherry-picked before me. I think cherry-picking is an ugly way of
> > doing SVN-like commit merges. And we should avoid it if possible. Definitely,
> > in case of release branches it should be doable via git branching model
> > like...
> > 
> >        http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
> > 
> > which preserves the history and commit SHAs. Can we please avoid
> > cherry-picking on release branches in the future? Please....
> > 
> > Thanks
> >  Cos
> > 
> > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:59PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> >> I have no concern if we can get the ignite 1.2 patch in quickly . :)
> >> 
> >> 2015-07-09 7:45 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> >> 
> >>> BIGTOP-1907 seems to be in. One last question - any objection of bumping up
> >>> Ignite to 1.2 which got released just a couple of weeks ago? It has good
> >>> fixes
> >>> (what I've heard ;)
> >>> 
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>> 
> >>> Cos
> >>> 
> >>> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 12:07PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> >>>> Sorry to chime in late.
> >>>> Bigtop 1907 should be in so that bigtop toolchain can successfully
> >>> applied
> >>>> on openSUSE. The things I'm still concerning about is that we do not know
> >>>> whether openSUSE is OK to build Bigtop components. IIRC it have some
> >>>> problems.
> >>>> However, if we treat the words "supporting OSs" as OSs that can install
> >>> and
> >>>> run Bigtop instead of build. Then we should be ok now. I personally
> >>> prefer
> >>>> the latter unless SUSE expert can help to fix and unlock the release. :)
> >>>> 2015/7/2 上午6:50 於 "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> 寫道：
> >>>> 
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Agree. It's super easy to push site updates any time after the
> >>> release is
> >>>>>> out.
> >>>>>> We are generating it our of the master anyway, so I see no reason to
> >>> hold
> >>>>>> 1.0
> >>>>>> because of the website changes.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> So, shall I spin-out RC1 then?
> >>>>>>  Cos
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:17AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> >>>>>>> We can fix the site after the release. I agree it will be
> >>> important to
> >>>>>> get
> >>>>>>> the content up to date as close as possible to when the release
> >>> goes
> >>>>> out.
> >>>>>>> Are we doing svnpubsub? If so it should be straightforward to
> >>> update.
> >>>>> One
> >>>>>>> of us (maybe me) can regen while RC voting is underway and push
> >>> upon
> >>>>>>> release.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> hi cos,
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> thanks for asking.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> two of the new commits were critical since last minute changes
> >>> broke
> >>>>>>>> compilation.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> I see no further technical Jiras waiting for inclusion into a 1.0
> >>>>> tag.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> But I am missing one „huge“ commit:
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Our web site is essentially a heap of obsolete stuff. Since the
> >>>>>> website is
> >>>>>>>> somehow generated from git, we should consolidate our site as
> >>> well
> >>>>>>>> reflecting the 1.0 release (for instance removing 0.8 information
> >>>>> from
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> frontpage). @all: Is there already any progress in this
> >>> direction?
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>> olaf
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Am 01.07.2015 um 02:16 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <
> >>> cos@apache.org
> >>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Guys,
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> I have noticed that branch-1.0 is now having these three
> >>> committs:
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 11dc343 BIGTOP-1893: Compilation of hadoop-yarn-client failed
> >>>>>>>>> edc881d BIGTOP-1902: typo in
> >>>>>>>> bigtop-deploy/vm/vagrant-puppet-vm/vagrantconfig.yaml
> >>>>>>>>> 885cd8f BIGTOP-1896. bigtop_toolchain broken bei ant update
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Now I would have to update CHANGES.txt and RELEASE notes for
> >>> both
> >>>>>> master
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> the branch. To me, those weren't that critical to include into
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>> release,
> >>>>>>>>> but I guess it makes no harm. Any other changes we have to
> >>> hold the
> >>>>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>>> for?
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>> Cos
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:14AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ok, master is unlocked for 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT development
> >>>>>>>>>> I have also pushed branch-1.0 that has all the bits for 1.0
> >>> RC,
> >>>>> but
> >>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>>>> have time to finish RC publishing up right now - will try to
> >>> do it
> >>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> train, but who knows if I will have any connection there.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> If anyone can pick up where I left-off - it'd be great: I am
> >>>>> really
> >>>>>>>> trying to
> >>>>>>>>>> get on my damn vacation ;) If not - I will try to find a bit
> >>> of
> >>>>> time
> >>>>>>>> next week
> >>>>>>>>>> for this.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks all for your help,
> >>>>>>>>>> Cos
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 09:56AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Indeed.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> The one hurdle I am facing though is that with BIGTOP-1833
> >>>>> getting
> >>>>>>>> pushed to
> >>>>>>>>>>> the master (which I normally would appreciate ;) I have to
> >>> fiddle
> >>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> my
> >>>>>>>>>>> local branches as they already had a commit for this fix.
> >>> Now,
> >>>>>>>> rebasing it
> >>>>>>>>>>> locally presents an issue where I need to fix some unpleasant
> >>>>>>>> conflicts in...
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Oh well, it will be done in a bit.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Cos
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:37PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I've committed the BIGTOP-1833 patch.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's so exciting that we're at the moment ready to release
> >>>>> bigtop
> >>>>>> 1.0.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please ping me if any help needed for release.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Evans
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2015-05-29 17:52 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <
> >>> cos@apache.org>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have made all preparations for 1.0 RC and changed
> >>> everything
> >>>>> we
> >>>>>>>> need to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> move
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT in the master.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> However, because BIGTOP-1833 hasn't been reviewed yet, I
> >>>>>> evidently
> >>>>>>>> haven't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> pushed this change and other commits to the master nor
> >>>>>> branch-1.0. I
> >>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> unblock me immediately if someone can review BIGTOP-1833
> >>>>> changes.
> >>>>>>>> Then
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is rather trivial and I have tested it to make sure that
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>> packages are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> produced.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd love to switch off to the vacation mode by the end of
> >>> the
> >>>>> day
> >>>>>>>> today but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have to wrap up the RC process (at least the branch
> >>> preparation
> >>>>>> part)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> before
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that. So if someone in Europe (during the day here) or
> >>> later in
> >>>>>> NA
> >>>>>>>> can do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> at your early convenience - it'd be just great!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cos
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 04:03PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 03:11PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, working on BIGTOP-1851 right now. Please pardon the
> >>>>>> delay, I
> >>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> sick
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over the weekend.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Andrew - hopefully are doing better now!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> >>>>>>>> apurtell@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cool, I went over to BIGTOP-1615 and it's already
> >>> resolved.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for BIGTOP-1827, if it's just a package naming
> >>> problem we
> >>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rename it, right? See my comment on the issue.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <
> >>>>>>>> cos@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we are in the good shape to cut-off 1.0 branch
> >>>>>> tonight. I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have ran
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full stack build on Ubuntu and everything is building
> >>> fine
> >>>>>> now.
> >>>>>>>> Of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> course
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testing needs to be done ;)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One last unresolved blocker is BIGTOP-1827. If I don't
> >>> hear
> >>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tachyon component's maintainers I will have to remove
> >>> this
> >>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0 because the packages are broken and we can release
> >>> them
> >>>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BIGTOP-1615 (another blocker) is in PA state, so if
> >>> anyone
> >>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>> take
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it'd be great!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cos
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Andy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting
> >>>>> back. -
> >>>>>>>> Piet
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hein
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (via Tom White)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Andy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting
> >>> back.
> >>>>> -
> >>>>>> Piet
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hein
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (via Tom White)
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>   - Andy
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> >>>>> Hein
> >>>>>>> (via Tom White)
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>   - Andy
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> >>> Hein
> >>>>> (via Tom White)
> >>>>> 
> >>> 
> 

Re: Gearing up for 1.0.0 (cut-off of the branch)

[Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>]

Cos,

As far as I understand a release is done, when a tag like release-1.0  is set, not when a branch is created. Since there is no release-1.0 tag, a release is not done. And the relase has still has no SHA, since we have no tag associated.

The merging of hotfix branches (suggested in the paper you mentioning) will do more harm to the log than a cherry-picking: On the release branch you will get two commits: The fix itself and a merge commit. With cherry-picking you will get only the fix itself.

The hotfix branch does make sense when you'll need more than one commit to fix a issue on a release. But since we use the one-JIRA-one-Commit model, it does not make sense to create a branch for every commit needed on a release branch. We would be polluting the repository with stale branches, since we'll have to push each commit as a branch to the official repository. We cannot remove them later, even when merged completly. So I would say -1 to hotfix branches in Bigtop.

Cherry-picking is valid if you'll need to fix releases through small changes (but only then). The fixes on bigtop where small....

Olaf




> Am 14.07.2015 um 21:15 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> 
> I have committed BIGTOP-1923 to the master and cherry-picked it to the branch.
> 
> The reason I did the cherry-picking is because there was a number of other
> commits cherry-picked before me. I think cherry-picking is an ugly way of
> doing SVN-like commit merges. And we should avoid it if possible. Definitely,
> in case of release branches it should be doable via git branching model
> like...
> 
>        http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
> 
> which preserves the history and commit SHAs. Can we please avoid
> cherry-picking on release branches in the future? Please....
> 
> Thanks
>  Cos
> 
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:59PM, Evans Ye wrote:
>> I have no concern if we can get the ignite 1.2 patch in quickly . :)
>> 
>> 2015-07-09 7:45 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
>> 
>>> BIGTOP-1907 seems to be in. One last question - any objection of bumping up
>>> Ignite to 1.2 which got released just a couple of weeks ago? It has good
>>> fixes
>>> (what I've heard ;)
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> Cos
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 12:07PM, Evans Ye wrote:
>>>> Sorry to chime in late.
>>>> Bigtop 1907 should be in so that bigtop toolchain can successfully
>>> applied
>>>> on openSUSE. The things I'm still concerning about is that we do not know
>>>> whether openSUSE is OK to build Bigtop components. IIRC it have some
>>>> problems.
>>>> However, if we treat the words "supporting OSs" as OSs that can install
>>> and
>>>> run Bigtop instead of build. Then we should be ok now. I personally
>>> prefer
>>>> the latter unless SUSE expert can help to fix and unlock the release. :)
>>>> 2015/7/2 上午6:50 於 "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> 寫道：
>>>> 
>>>>> +1
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Agree. It's super easy to push site updates any time after the
>>> release is
>>>>>> out.
>>>>>> We are generating it our of the master anyway, so I see no reason to
>>> hold
>>>>>> 1.0
>>>>>> because of the website changes.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, shall I spin-out RC1 then?
>>>>>>  Cos
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:17AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>>>>>>> We can fix the site after the release. I agree it will be
>>> important to
>>>>>> get
>>>>>>> the content up to date as close as possible to when the release
>>> goes
>>>>> out.
>>>>>>> Are we doing svnpubsub? If so it should be straightforward to
>>> update.
>>>>> One
>>>>>>> of us (maybe me) can regen while RC voting is underway and push
>>> upon
>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> hi cos,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> thanks for asking.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> two of the new commits were critical since last minute changes
>>> broke
>>>>>>>> compilation.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I see no further technical Jiras waiting for inclusion into a 1.0
>>>>> tag.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> But I am missing one „huge“ commit:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Our web site is essentially a heap of obsolete stuff. Since the
>>>>>> website is
>>>>>>>> somehow generated from git, we should consolidate our site as
>>> well
>>>>>>>> reflecting the 1.0 release (for instance removing 0.8 information
>>>>> from
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> frontpage). @all: Is there already any progress in this
>>> direction?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> olaf
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Am 01.07.2015 um 02:16 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <
>>> cos@apache.org
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I have noticed that branch-1.0 is now having these three
>>> committs:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 11dc343 BIGTOP-1893: Compilation of hadoop-yarn-client failed
>>>>>>>>> edc881d BIGTOP-1902: typo in
>>>>>>>> bigtop-deploy/vm/vagrant-puppet-vm/vagrantconfig.yaml
>>>>>>>>> 885cd8f BIGTOP-1896. bigtop_toolchain broken bei ant update
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Now I would have to update CHANGES.txt and RELEASE notes for
>>> both
>>>>>> master
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> the branch. To me, those weren't that critical to include into
>>> the
>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>>> but I guess it makes no harm. Any other changes we have to
>>> hold the
>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>> for?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Cos
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:14AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ok, master is unlocked for 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT development
>>>>>>>>>> I have also pushed branch-1.0 that has all the bits for 1.0
>>> RC,
>>>>> but
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>> have time to finish RC publishing up right now - will try to
>>> do it
>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> train, but who knows if I will have any connection there.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> If anyone can pick up where I left-off - it'd be great: I am
>>>>> really
>>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>>>>> get on my damn vacation ;) If not - I will try to find a bit
>>> of
>>>>> time
>>>>>>>> next week
>>>>>>>>>> for this.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks all for your help,
>>>>>>>>>> Cos
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 09:56AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> The one hurdle I am facing though is that with BIGTOP-1833
>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>> pushed to
>>>>>>>>>>> the master (which I normally would appreciate ;) I have to
>>> fiddle
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>> local branches as they already had a commit for this fix.
>>> Now,
>>>>>>>> rebasing it
>>>>>>>>>>> locally presents an issue where I need to fix some unpleasant
>>>>>>>> conflicts in...
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh well, it will be done in a bit.
>>>>>>>>>>> Cos
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:37PM, Evans Ye wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've committed the BIGTOP-1833 patch.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's so exciting that we're at the moment ready to release
>>>>> bigtop
>>>>>> 1.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please ping me if any help needed for release.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Evans
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015-05-29 17:52 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <
>>> cos@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have made all preparations for 1.0 RC and changed
>>> everything
>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> move
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT in the master.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, because BIGTOP-1833 hasn't been reviewed yet, I
>>>>>> evidently
>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushed this change and other commits to the master nor
>>>>>> branch-1.0. I
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unblock me immediately if someone can review BIGTOP-1833
>>>>> changes.
>>>>>>>> Then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is rather trivial and I have tested it to make sure that
>>> the
>>>>>>>> packages are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd love to switch off to the vacation mode by the end of
>>> the
>>>>> day
>>>>>>>> today but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to wrap up the RC process (at least the branch
>>> preparation
>>>>>> part)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. So if someone in Europe (during the day here) or
>>> later in
>>>>>> NA
>>>>>>>> can do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at your early convenience - it'd be just great!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cos
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 04:03PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 03:11PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, working on BIGTOP-1851 right now. Please pardon the
>>>>>> delay, I
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over the weekend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Andrew - hopefully are doing better now!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>>>>>>>> apurtell@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cool, I went over to BIGTOP-1615 and it's already
>>> resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for BIGTOP-1827, if it's just a package naming
>>> problem we
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rename it, right? See my comment on the issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <
>>>>>>>> cos@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we are in the good shape to cut-off 1.0 branch
>>>>>> tonight. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have ran
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full stack build on Ubuntu and everything is building
>>> fine
>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>> Of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> course
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testing needs to be done ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One last unresolved blocker is BIGTOP-1827. If I don't
>>> hear
>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tachyon component's maintainers I will have to remove
>>> this
>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0 because the packages are broken and we can release
>>> them
>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BIGTOP-1615 (another blocker) is in PA state, so if
>>> anyone
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it'd be great!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cos
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Andy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting
>>>>> back. -
>>>>>>>> Piet
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hein
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (via Tom White)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Andy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting
>>> back.
>>>>> -
>>>>>> Piet
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hein
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (via Tom White)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   - Andy
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
>>>>> Hein
>>>>>>> (via Tom White)
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>>   - Andy
>>>>> 
>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
>>> Hein
>>>>> (via Tom White)
>>>>> 
>>> 

Re: Gearing up for 1.0.0 (cut-off of the branch)

[Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>]

I have committed BIGTOP-1923 to the master and cherry-picked it to the branch.

The reason I did the cherry-picking is because there was a number of other
commits cherry-picked before me. I think cherry-picking is an ugly way of
doing SVN-like commit merges. And we should avoid it if possible. Definitely,
in case of release branches it should be doable via git branching model
like...

        http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/

which preserves the history and commit SHAs. Can we please avoid
cherry-picking on release branches in the future? Please....

Thanks
  Cos
    
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:59PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> I have no concern if we can get the ignite 1.2 patch in quickly . :)
> 
> 2015-07-09 7:45 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> 
> > BIGTOP-1907 seems to be in. One last question - any objection of bumping up
> > Ignite to 1.2 which got released just a couple of weeks ago? It has good
> > fixes
> > (what I've heard ;)
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Cos
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 12:07PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > > Sorry to chime in late.
> > > Bigtop 1907 should be in so that bigtop toolchain can successfully
> > applied
> > > on openSUSE. The things I'm still concerning about is that we do not know
> > > whether openSUSE is OK to build Bigtop components. IIRC it have some
> > > problems.
> > > However, if we treat the words "supporting OSs" as OSs that can install
> > and
> > > run Bigtop instead of build. Then we should be ok now. I personally
> > prefer
> > > the latter unless SUSE expert can help to fix and unlock the release. :)
> > > 2015/7/2 上午6:50 於 "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> 寫道：
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Agree. It's super easy to push site updates any time after the
> > release is
> > > > > out.
> > > > > We are generating it our of the master anyway, so I see no reason to
> > hold
> > > > > 1.0
> > > > > because of the website changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, shall I spin-out RC1 then?
> > > > >   Cos
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:17AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > > > > We can fix the site after the release. I agree it will be
> > important to
> > > > > get
> > > > > > the content up to date as close as possible to when the release
> > goes
> > > > out.
> > > > > > Are we doing svnpubsub? If so it should be straightforward to
> > update.
> > > > One
> > > > > > of us (maybe me) can regen while RC voting is underway and push
> > upon
> > > > > > release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > hi cos,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > thanks for asking.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > two of the new commits were critical since last minute changes
> > broke
> > > > > > > compilation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see no further technical Jiras waiting for inclusion into a 1.0
> > > > tag.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But I am missing one „huge“ commit:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Our web site is essentially a heap of obsolete stuff. Since the
> > > > > website is
> > > > > > > somehow generated from git, we should consolidate our site as
> > well
> > > > > > > reflecting the 1.0 release (for instance removing 0.8 information
> > > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > frontpage). @all: Is there already any progress in this
> > direction?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > olaf
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Am 01.07.2015 um 02:16 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <
> > cos@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have noticed that branch-1.0 is now having these three
> > committs:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 11dc343 BIGTOP-1893: Compilation of hadoop-yarn-client failed
> > > > > > > > edc881d BIGTOP-1902: typo in
> > > > > > > bigtop-deploy/vm/vagrant-puppet-vm/vagrantconfig.yaml
> > > > > > > > 885cd8f BIGTOP-1896. bigtop_toolchain broken bei ant update
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now I would have to update CHANGES.txt and RELEASE notes for
> > both
> > > > > master
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > the branch. To me, those weren't that critical to include into
> > the
> > > > > > > release,
> > > > > > > > but I guess it makes no harm. Any other changes we have to
> > hold the
> > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > for?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Cos
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:14AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > > > > > >> Ok, master is unlocked for 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT development
> > > > > > > >> I have also pushed branch-1.0 that has all the bits for 1.0
> > RC,
> > > > but
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > >> have time to finish RC publishing up right now - will try to
> > do it
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> train, but who knows if I will have any connection there.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> If anyone can pick up where I left-off - it'd be great: I am
> > > > really
> > > > > > > trying to
> > > > > > > >> get on my damn vacation ;) If not - I will try to find a bit
> > of
> > > > time
> > > > > > > next week
> > > > > > > >> for this.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Thanks all for your help,
> > > > > > > >> Cos
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 09:56AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> Indeed.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> The one hurdle I am facing though is that with BIGTOP-1833
> > > > getting
> > > > > > > pushed to
> > > > > > > >>> the master (which I normally would appreciate ;) I have to
> > fiddle
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > >>> local branches as they already had a commit for this fix.
> > Now,
> > > > > > > rebasing it
> > > > > > > >>> locally presents an issue where I need to fix some unpleasant
> > > > > > > conflicts in...
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Oh well, it will be done in a bit.
> > > > > > > >>> Cos
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:37PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> I've committed the BIGTOP-1833 patch.
> > > > > > > >>>> It's so exciting that we're at the moment ready to release
> > > > bigtop
> > > > > 1.0.
> > > > > > > >>>> Please ping me if any help needed for release.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Evans
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> 2015-05-29 17:52 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <
> > cos@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Guys,
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> I have made all preparations for 1.0 RC and changed
> > everything
> > > > we
> > > > > > > need to
> > > > > > > >>>>> move
> > > > > > > >>>>> to 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT in the master.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> However, because BIGTOP-1833 hasn't been reviewed yet, I
> > > > > evidently
> > > > > > > haven't
> > > > > > > >>>>> pushed this change and other commits to the master nor
> > > > > branch-1.0. I
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > >>>>> unblock me immediately if someone can review BIGTOP-1833
> > > > changes.
> > > > > > > Then
> > > > > > > >>>>> patch
> > > > > > > >>>>> is rather trivial and I have tested it to make sure that
> > the
> > > > > > > packages are
> > > > > > > >>>>> produced.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> I'd love to switch off to the vacation mode by the end of
> > the
> > > > day
> > > > > > > today but
> > > > > > > >>>>> have to wrap up the RC process (at least the branch
> > preparation
> > > > > part)
> > > > > > > >>>>> before
> > > > > > > >>>>> that. So if someone in Europe (during the day here) or
> > later in
> > > > > NA
> > > > > > > can do
> > > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > > >>>>> at your early convenience - it'd be just great!
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks in advance!
> > > > > > > >>>>> Cos
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 04:03PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 03:11PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Also, working on BIGTOP-1851 right now. Please pardon the
> > > > > delay, I
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > >>>>> sick
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> over the weekend.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks Andrew - hopefully are doing better now!
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > > > > apurtell@apache.org>
> > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Cool, I went over to BIGTOP-1615 and it's already
> > resolved.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> As for BIGTOP-1827, if it's just a package naming
> > problem we
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> rename it, right? See my comment on the issue.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <
> > > > > > > cos@apache.org>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Guys
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I think we are in the good shape to cut-off 1.0 branch
> > > > > tonight. I
> > > > > > > >>>>> have ran
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> full stack build on Ubuntu and everything is building
> > fine
> > > > > now.
> > > > > > > Of
> > > > > > > >>>>> course
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> testing needs to be done ;)
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> One last unresolved blocker is BIGTOP-1827. If I don't
> > hear
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Tachyon component's maintainers I will have to remove
> > this
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> release
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 1.0 because the packages are broken and we can release
> > them
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > >>>>> this.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> BIGTOP-1615 (another blocker) is in PA state, so if
> > anyone
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > take
> > > > > > > >>>>> a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> look -
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> it'd be great!
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Cos
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>  - Andy
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting
> > > > back. -
> > > > > > > Piet
> > > > > > > >>>>> Hein
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> (via Tom White)
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>  - Andy
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting
> > back.
> > > > -
> > > > > Piet
> > > > > > > >>>>> Hein
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> (via Tom White)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >    - Andy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > > > Hein
> > > > > > (via Tom White)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > >    - Andy
> > > >
> > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > > > (via Tom White)
> > > >
> >

Re: Gearing up for 1.0.0 (cut-off of the branch)

[Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>]

I'll post it first thing am ;) already tested on my local box

On July 9, 2015 12:59:10 AM PDT, Evans Ye <ev...@apache.org> wrote:
>I have no concern if we can get the ignite 1.2 patch in quickly . :)
>
>2015-07-09 7:45 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
>
>> BIGTOP-1907 seems to be in. One last question - any objection of
>bumping up
>> Ignite to 1.2 which got released just a couple of weeks ago? It has
>good
>> fixes
>> (what I've heard ;)
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Cos
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 12:07PM, Evans Ye wrote:
>> > Sorry to chime in late.
>> > Bigtop 1907 should be in so that bigtop toolchain can successfully
>> applied
>> > on openSUSE. The things I'm still concerning about is that we do
>not know
>> > whether openSUSE is OK to build Bigtop components. IIRC it have
>some
>> > problems.
>> > However, if we treat the words "supporting OSs" as OSs that can
>install
>> and
>> > run Bigtop instead of build. Then we should be ok now. I personally
>> prefer
>> > the latter unless SUSE expert can help to fix and unlock the
>release. :)
>> > 2015/7/2 上午6:50 於 "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> 寫道：
>> >
>> > > +1
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Konstantin Boudnik
><co...@apache.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Agree. It's super easy to push site updates any time after the
>> release is
>> > > > out.
>> > > > We are generating it our of the master anyway, so I see no
>reason to
>> hold
>> > > > 1.0
>> > > > because of the website changes.
>> > > >
>> > > > So, shall I spin-out RC1 then?
>> > > >   Cos
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:17AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>> > > > > We can fix the site after the release. I agree it will be
>> important to
>> > > > get
>> > > > > the content up to date as close as possible to when the
>release
>> goes
>> > > out.
>> > > > > Are we doing svnpubsub? If so it should be straightforward to
>> update.
>> > > One
>> > > > > of us (maybe me) can regen while RC voting is underway and
>push
>> upon
>> > > > > release.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>
>> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > hi cos,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > thanks for asking.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > two of the new commits were critical since last minute
>changes
>> broke
>> > > > > > compilation.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I see no further technical Jiras waiting for inclusion into
>a 1.0
>> > > tag.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > But I am missing one „huge“ commit:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Our web site is essentially a heap of obsolete stuff. Since
>the
>> > > > website is
>> > > > > > somehow generated from git, we should consolidate our site
>as
>> well
>> > > > > > reflecting the 1.0 release (for instance removing 0.8
>information
>> > > from
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > frontpage). @all: Is there already any progress in this
>> direction?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > olaf
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Am 01.07.2015 um 02:16 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <
>> cos@apache.org
>> > > >:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Guys,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I have noticed that branch-1.0 is now having these three
>> committs:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 11dc343 BIGTOP-1893: Compilation of hadoop-yarn-client
>failed
>> > > > > > > edc881d BIGTOP-1902: typo in
>> > > > > > bigtop-deploy/vm/vagrant-puppet-vm/vagrantconfig.yaml
>> > > > > > > 885cd8f BIGTOP-1896. bigtop_toolchain broken bei ant
>update
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Now I would have to update CHANGES.txt and RELEASE notes
>for
>> both
>> > > > master
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > the branch. To me, those weren't that critical to include
>into
>> the
>> > > > > > release,
>> > > > > > > but I guess it makes no harm. Any other changes we have
>to
>> hold the
>> > > > > > release
>> > > > > > > for?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > > Cos
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:14AM, Konstantin Boudnik
>wrote:
>> > > > > > >> Ok, master is unlocked for 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT development
>> > > > > > >> I have also pushed branch-1.0 that has all the bits for
>1.0
>> RC,
>> > > but
>> > > > I
>> > > > > > don't
>> > > > > > >> have time to finish RC publishing up right now - will
>try to
>> do it
>> > > > from
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> train, but who knows if I will have any connection
>there.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> If anyone can pick up where I left-off - it'd be great:
>I am
>> > > really
>> > > > > > trying to
>> > > > > > >> get on my damn vacation ;) If not - I will try to find a
>bit
>> of
>> > > time
>> > > > > > next week
>> > > > > > >> for this.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> Thanks all for your help,
>> > > > > > >> Cos
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 09:56AM, Konstantin Boudnik
>wrote:
>> > > > > > >>> Indeed.
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> The one hurdle I am facing though is that with
>BIGTOP-1833
>> > > getting
>> > > > > > pushed to
>> > > > > > >>> the master (which I normally would appreciate ;) I have
>to
>> fiddle
>> > > > with
>> > > > > > my
>> > > > > > >>> local branches as they already had a commit for this
>fix.
>> Now,
>> > > > > > rebasing it
>> > > > > > >>> locally presents an issue where I need to fix some
>unpleasant
>> > > > > > conflicts in...
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> Oh well, it will be done in a bit.
>> > > > > > >>> Cos
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:37PM, Evans Ye wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>> I've committed the BIGTOP-1833 patch.
>> > > > > > >>>> It's so exciting that we're at the moment ready to
>release
>> > > bigtop
>> > > > 1.0.
>> > > > > > >>>> Please ping me if any help needed for release.
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>> Evans
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>> 2015-05-29 17:52 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <
>> cos@apache.org>:
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> Guys,
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> I have made all preparations for 1.0 RC and changed
>> everything
>> > > we
>> > > > > > need to
>> > > > > > >>>>> move
>> > > > > > >>>>> to 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT in the master.
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> However, because BIGTOP-1833 hasn't been reviewed
>yet, I
>> > > > evidently
>> > > > > > haven't
>> > > > > > >>>>> pushed this change and other commits to the master
>nor
>> > > > branch-1.0. I
>> > > > > > would
>> > > > > > >>>>> unblock me immediately if someone can review
>BIGTOP-1833
>> > > changes.
>> > > > > > Then
>> > > > > > >>>>> patch
>> > > > > > >>>>> is rather trivial and I have tested it to make sure
>that
>> the
>> > > > > > packages are
>> > > > > > >>>>> produced.
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> I'd love to switch off to the vacation mode by the
>end of
>> the
>> > > day
>> > > > > > today but
>> > > > > > >>>>> have to wrap up the RC process (at least the branch
>> preparation
>> > > > part)
>> > > > > > >>>>> before
>> > > > > > >>>>> that. So if someone in Europe (during the day here)
>or
>> later in
>> > > > NA
>> > > > > > can do
>> > > > > > >>>>> this
>> > > > > > >>>>> at your early convenience - it'd be just great!
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks in advance!
>> > > > > > >>>>> Cos
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 04:03PM, Konstantin Boudnik
>wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 03:11PM, Andrew Purtell
>wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Also, working on BIGTOP-1851 right now. Please
>pardon the
>> > > > delay, I
>> > > > > > was
>> > > > > > >>>>> sick
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> over the weekend.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks Andrew - hopefully are doing better now!
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> > > > > > apurtell@apache.org>
>> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Cool, I went over to BIGTOP-1615 and it's already
>> resolved.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> As for BIGTOP-1827, if it's just a package naming
>> problem we
>> > > > can
>> > > > > > just
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> rename it, right? See my comment on the issue.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Konstantin
>Boudnik <
>> > > > > > cos@apache.org>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Guys
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I think we are in the good shape to cut-off 1.0
>branch
>> > > > tonight. I
>> > > > > > >>>>> have ran
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> full stack build on Ubuntu and everything is
>building
>> fine
>> > > > now.
>> > > > > > Of
>> > > > > > >>>>> course
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> some
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> testing needs to be done ;)
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> One last unresolved blocker is BIGTOP-1827. If I
>don't
>> hear
>> > > > from
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Tachyon component's maintainers I will have to
>remove
>> this
>> > > > from
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> release
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 1.0 because the packages are broken and we can
>release
>> them
>> > > > like
>> > > > > > >>>>> this.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> BIGTOP-1615 (another blocker) is in PA state, so
>if
>> anyone
>> > > > can
>> > > > > > take
>> > > > > > >>>>> a
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> look -
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> it'd be great!
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Cos
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> --
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Best regards,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>  - Andy
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by
>hitting
>> > > back. -
>> > > > > > Piet
>> > > > > > >>>>> Hein
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> (via Tom White)
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> --
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best regards,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>  - Andy
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by
>hitting
>> back.
>> > > -
>> > > > Piet
>> > > > > > >>>>> Hein
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> (via Tom White)
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > >
>> > > > >    - Andy
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back.
>- Piet
>> > > Hein
>> > > > > (via Tom White)
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Best regards,
>> > >
>> > >    - Andy
>> > >
>> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. -
>Piet
>> Hein
>> > > (via Tom White)
>> > >
>>

Re: Gearing up for 1.0.0 (cut-off of the branch)

[Evans Ye <ev...@apache.org>]

I have no concern if we can get the ignite 1.2 patch in quickly . :)

2015-07-09 7:45 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:

> BIGTOP-1907 seems to be in. One last question - any objection of bumping up
> Ignite to 1.2 which got released just a couple of weeks ago? It has good
> fixes
> (what I've heard ;)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cos
>
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 12:07PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > Sorry to chime in late.
> > Bigtop 1907 should be in so that bigtop toolchain can successfully
> applied
> > on openSUSE. The things I'm still concerning about is that we do not know
> > whether openSUSE is OK to build Bigtop components. IIRC it have some
> > problems.
> > However, if we treat the words "supporting OSs" as OSs that can install
> and
> > run Bigtop instead of build. Then we should be ok now. I personally
> prefer
> > the latter unless SUSE expert can help to fix and unlock the release. :)
> > 2015/7/2 上午6:50 於 "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> 寫道：
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Agree. It's super easy to push site updates any time after the
> release is
> > > > out.
> > > > We are generating it our of the master anyway, so I see no reason to
> hold
> > > > 1.0
> > > > because of the website changes.
> > > >
> > > > So, shall I spin-out RC1 then?
> > > >   Cos
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:17AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > > > We can fix the site after the release. I agree it will be
> important to
> > > > get
> > > > > the content up to date as close as possible to when the release
> goes
> > > out.
> > > > > Are we doing svnpubsub? If so it should be straightforward to
> update.
> > > One
> > > > > of us (maybe me) can regen while RC voting is underway and push
> upon
> > > > > release.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > hi cos,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks for asking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > two of the new commits were critical since last minute changes
> broke
> > > > > > compilation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see no further technical Jiras waiting for inclusion into a 1.0
> > > tag.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But I am missing one „huge“ commit:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Our web site is essentially a heap of obsolete stuff. Since the
> > > > website is
> > > > > > somehow generated from git, we should consolidate our site as
> well
> > > > > > reflecting the 1.0 release (for instance removing 0.8 information
> > > from
> > > > the
> > > > > > frontpage). @all: Is there already any progress in this
> direction?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > olaf
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Am 01.07.2015 um 02:16 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <
> cos@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have noticed that branch-1.0 is now having these three
> committs:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 11dc343 BIGTOP-1893: Compilation of hadoop-yarn-client failed
> > > > > > > edc881d BIGTOP-1902: typo in
> > > > > > bigtop-deploy/vm/vagrant-puppet-vm/vagrantconfig.yaml
> > > > > > > 885cd8f BIGTOP-1896. bigtop_toolchain broken bei ant update
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now I would have to update CHANGES.txt and RELEASE notes for
> both
> > > > master
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > the branch. To me, those weren't that critical to include into
> the
> > > > > > release,
> > > > > > > but I guess it makes no harm. Any other changes we have to
> hold the
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > > for?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Cos
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:14AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > > > > >> Ok, master is unlocked for 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT development
> > > > > > >> I have also pushed branch-1.0 that has all the bits for 1.0
> RC,
> > > but
> > > > I
> > > > > > don't
> > > > > > >> have time to finish RC publishing up right now - will try to
> do it
> > > > from
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> train, but who knows if I will have any connection there.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> If anyone can pick up where I left-off - it'd be great: I am
> > > really
> > > > > > trying to
> > > > > > >> get on my damn vacation ;) If not - I will try to find a bit
> of
> > > time
> > > > > > next week
> > > > > > >> for this.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thanks all for your help,
> > > > > > >> Cos
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 09:56AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > > > > >>> Indeed.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> The one hurdle I am facing though is that with BIGTOP-1833
> > > getting
> > > > > > pushed to
> > > > > > >>> the master (which I normally would appreciate ;) I have to
> fiddle
> > > > with
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > >>> local branches as they already had a commit for this fix.
> Now,
> > > > > > rebasing it
> > > > > > >>> locally presents an issue where I need to fix some unpleasant
> > > > > > conflicts in...
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Oh well, it will be done in a bit.
> > > > > > >>> Cos
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:37PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> I've committed the BIGTOP-1833 patch.
> > > > > > >>>> It's so exciting that we're at the moment ready to release
> > > bigtop
> > > > 1.0.
> > > > > > >>>> Please ping me if any help needed for release.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Evans
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> 2015-05-29 17:52 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <
> cos@apache.org>:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Guys,
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> I have made all preparations for 1.0 RC and changed
> everything
> > > we
> > > > > > need to
> > > > > > >>>>> move
> > > > > > >>>>> to 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT in the master.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> However, because BIGTOP-1833 hasn't been reviewed yet, I
> > > > evidently
> > > > > > haven't
> > > > > > >>>>> pushed this change and other commits to the master nor
> > > > branch-1.0. I
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > >>>>> unblock me immediately if someone can review BIGTOP-1833
> > > changes.
> > > > > > Then
> > > > > > >>>>> patch
> > > > > > >>>>> is rather trivial and I have tested it to make sure that
> the
> > > > > > packages are
> > > > > > >>>>> produced.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> I'd love to switch off to the vacation mode by the end of
> the
> > > day
> > > > > > today but
> > > > > > >>>>> have to wrap up the RC process (at least the branch
> preparation
> > > > part)
> > > > > > >>>>> before
> > > > > > >>>>> that. So if someone in Europe (during the day here) or
> later in
> > > > NA
> > > > > > can do
> > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > >>>>> at your early convenience - it'd be just great!
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks in advance!
> > > > > > >>>>> Cos
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 04:03PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 03:11PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Also, working on BIGTOP-1851 right now. Please pardon the
> > > > delay, I
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > >>>>> sick
> > > > > > >>>>>>> over the weekend.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks Andrew - hopefully are doing better now!
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > > > apurtell@apache.org>
> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Cool, I went over to BIGTOP-1615 and it's already
> resolved.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> As for BIGTOP-1827, if it's just a package naming
> problem we
> > > > can
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> rename it, right? See my comment on the issue.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <
> > > > > > cos@apache.org>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Guys
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I think we are in the good shape to cut-off 1.0 branch
> > > > tonight. I
> > > > > > >>>>> have ran
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> full stack build on Ubuntu and everything is building
> fine
> > > > now.
> > > > > > Of
> > > > > > >>>>> course
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> testing needs to be done ;)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> One last unresolved blocker is BIGTOP-1827. If I don't
> hear
> > > > from
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Tachyon component's maintainers I will have to remove
> this
> > > > from
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> release
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 1.0 because the packages are broken and we can release
> them
> > > > like
> > > > > > >>>>> this.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> BIGTOP-1615 (another blocker) is in PA state, so if
> anyone
> > > > can
> > > > > > take
> > > > > > >>>>> a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> look -
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> it'd be great!
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Cos
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>  - Andy
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting
> > > back. -
> > > > > > Piet
> > > > > > >>>>> Hein
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> (via Tom White)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>  - Andy
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting
> back.
> > > -
> > > > Piet
> > > > > > >>>>> Hein
> > > > > > >>>>>>> (via Tom White)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >
> > > > >    - Andy
> > > > >
> > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > > Hein
> > > > > (via Tom White)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > >    - Andy
> > >
> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > (via Tom White)
> > >
>

Re: Gearing up for 1.0.0 (cut-off of the branch)

[Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>]

BIGTOP-1907 seems to be in. One last question - any objection of bumping up
Ignite to 1.2 which got released just a couple of weeks ago? It has good fixes
(what I've heard ;) 

Thoughts?

Cos

On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 12:07PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> Sorry to chime in late.
> Bigtop 1907 should be in so that bigtop toolchain can successfully applied
> on openSUSE. The things I'm still concerning about is that we do not know
> whether openSUSE is OK to build Bigtop components. IIRC it have some
> problems.
> However, if we treat the words "supporting OSs" as OSs that can install and
> run Bigtop instead of build. Then we should be ok now. I personally prefer
> the latter unless SUSE expert can help to fix and unlock the release. :)
> 2015/7/2 上午6:50 於 "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> 寫道：
> 
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Agree. It's super easy to push site updates any time after the release is
> > > out.
> > > We are generating it our of the master anyway, so I see no reason to hold
> > > 1.0
> > > because of the website changes.
> > >
> > > So, shall I spin-out RC1 then?
> > >   Cos
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:17AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > > We can fix the site after the release. I agree it will be important to
> > > get
> > > > the content up to date as close as possible to when the release goes
> > out.
> > > > Are we doing svnpubsub? If so it should be straightforward to update.
> > One
> > > > of us (maybe me) can regen while RC voting is underway and push upon
> > > > release.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > hi cos,
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks for asking.
> > > > >
> > > > > two of the new commits were critical since last minute changes broke
> > > > > compilation.
> > > > >
> > > > > I see no further technical Jiras waiting for inclusion into a 1.0
> > tag.
> > > > >
> > > > > But I am missing one „huge“ commit:
> > > > >
> > > > > Our web site is essentially a heap of obsolete stuff. Since the
> > > website is
> > > > > somehow generated from git, we should consolidate our site as well
> > > > > reflecting the 1.0 release (for instance removing 0.8 information
> > from
> > > the
> > > > > frontpage). @all: Is there already any progress in this direction?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > olaf
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Am 01.07.2015 um 02:16 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have noticed that branch-1.0 is now having these three committs:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 11dc343 BIGTOP-1893: Compilation of hadoop-yarn-client failed
> > > > > > edc881d BIGTOP-1902: typo in
> > > > > bigtop-deploy/vm/vagrant-puppet-vm/vagrantconfig.yaml
> > > > > > 885cd8f BIGTOP-1896. bigtop_toolchain broken bei ant update
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now I would have to update CHANGES.txt and RELEASE notes for both
> > > master
> > > > > and
> > > > > > the branch. To me, those weren't that critical to include into the
> > > > > release,
> > > > > > but I guess it makes no harm. Any other changes we have to hold the
> > > > > release
> > > > > > for?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Cos
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:14AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > > > >> Ok, master is unlocked for 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT development
> > > > > >> I have also pushed branch-1.0 that has all the bits for 1.0 RC,
> > but
> > > I
> > > > > don't
> > > > > >> have time to finish RC publishing up right now - will try to do it
> > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> train, but who knows if I will have any connection there.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> If anyone can pick up where I left-off - it'd be great: I am
> > really
> > > > > trying to
> > > > > >> get on my damn vacation ;) If not - I will try to find a bit of
> > time
> > > > > next week
> > > > > >> for this.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks all for your help,
> > > > > >> Cos
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 09:56AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > > > >>> Indeed.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> The one hurdle I am facing though is that with BIGTOP-1833
> > getting
> > > > > pushed to
> > > > > >>> the master (which I normally would appreciate ;) I have to fiddle
> > > with
> > > > > my
> > > > > >>> local branches as they already had a commit for this fix. Now,
> > > > > rebasing it
> > > > > >>> locally presents an issue where I need to fix some unpleasant
> > > > > conflicts in...
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Oh well, it will be done in a bit.
> > > > > >>> Cos
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:37PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > > > > >>>> I've committed the BIGTOP-1833 patch.
> > > > > >>>> It's so exciting that we're at the moment ready to release
> > bigtop
> > > 1.0.
> > > > > >>>> Please ping me if any help needed for release.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Evans
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> 2015-05-29 17:52 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Guys,
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I have made all preparations for 1.0 RC and changed everything
> > we
> > > > > need to
> > > > > >>>>> move
> > > > > >>>>> to 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT in the master.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> However, because BIGTOP-1833 hasn't been reviewed yet, I
> > > evidently
> > > > > haven't
> > > > > >>>>> pushed this change and other commits to the master nor
> > > branch-1.0. I
> > > > > would
> > > > > >>>>> unblock me immediately if someone can review BIGTOP-1833
> > changes.
> > > > > Then
> > > > > >>>>> patch
> > > > > >>>>> is rather trivial and I have tested it to make sure that the
> > > > > packages are
> > > > > >>>>> produced.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I'd love to switch off to the vacation mode by the end of the
> > day
> > > > > today but
> > > > > >>>>> have to wrap up the RC process (at least the branch preparation
> > > part)
> > > > > >>>>> before
> > > > > >>>>> that. So if someone in Europe (during the day here) or later in
> > > NA
> > > > > can do
> > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > >>>>> at your early convenience - it'd be just great!
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Thanks in advance!
> > > > > >>>>> Cos
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 04:03PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 03:11PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> Also, working on BIGTOP-1851 right now. Please pardon the
> > > delay, I
> > > > > was
> > > > > >>>>> sick
> > > > > >>>>>>> over the weekend.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Thanks Andrew - hopefully are doing better now!
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > > apurtell@apache.org>
> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Cool, I went over to BIGTOP-1615 and it's already resolved.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> As for BIGTOP-1827, if it's just a package naming problem we
> > > can
> > > > > just
> > > > > >>>>>>>> rename it, right? See my comment on the issue.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <
> > > > > cos@apache.org>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Guys
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> I think we are in the good shape to cut-off 1.0 branch
> > > tonight. I
> > > > > >>>>> have ran
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> full stack build on Ubuntu and everything is building fine
> > > now.
> > > > > Of
> > > > > >>>>> course
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> testing needs to be done ;)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> One last unresolved blocker is BIGTOP-1827. If I don't hear
> > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Tachyon component's maintainers I will have to remove this
> > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> release
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> 1.0 because the packages are broken and we can release them
> > > like
> > > > > >>>>> this.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> BIGTOP-1615 (another blocker) is in PA state, so if anyone
> > > can
> > > > > take
> > > > > >>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> look -
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> it'd be great!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Cos
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>  - Andy
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting
> > back. -
> > > > > Piet
> > > > > >>>>> Hein
> > > > > >>>>>>>> (via Tom White)
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>  - Andy
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back.
> > -
> > > Piet
> > > > > >>>>> Hein
> > > > > >>>>>>> (via Tom White)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > >    - Andy
> > > >
> > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > > > (via Tom White)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >    - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >

Re: Gearing up for 1.0.0 (cut-off of the branch)

[Evans Ye <ev...@apache.org>]

Sorry to chime in late.
Bigtop 1907 should be in so that bigtop toolchain can successfully applied
on openSUSE. The things I'm still concerning about is that we do not know
whether openSUSE is OK to build Bigtop components. IIRC it have some
problems.
However, if we treat the words "supporting OSs" as OSs that can install and
run Bigtop instead of build. Then we should be ok now. I personally prefer
the latter unless SUSE expert can help to fix and unlock the release. :)
2015/7/2 上午6:50 於 "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> 寫道：

> +1
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Agree. It's super easy to push site updates any time after the release is
> > out.
> > We are generating it our of the master anyway, so I see no reason to hold
> > 1.0
> > because of the website changes.
> >
> > So, shall I spin-out RC1 then?
> >   Cos
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:17AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > We can fix the site after the release. I agree it will be important to
> > get
> > > the content up to date as close as possible to when the release goes
> out.
> > > Are we doing svnpubsub? If so it should be straightforward to update.
> One
> > > of us (maybe me) can regen while RC voting is underway and push upon
> > > release.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > hi cos,
> > > >
> > > > thanks for asking.
> > > >
> > > > two of the new commits were critical since last minute changes broke
> > > > compilation.
> > > >
> > > > I see no further technical Jiras waiting for inclusion into a 1.0
> tag.
> > > >
> > > > But I am missing one „huge“ commit:
> > > >
> > > > Our web site is essentially a heap of obsolete stuff. Since the
> > website is
> > > > somehow generated from git, we should consolidate our site as well
> > > > reflecting the 1.0 release (for instance removing 0.8 information
> from
> > the
> > > > frontpage). @all: Is there already any progress in this direction?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > olaf
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Am 01.07.2015 um 02:16 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org
> >:
> > > > >
> > > > > Guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have noticed that branch-1.0 is now having these three committs:
> > > > >
> > > > > 11dc343 BIGTOP-1893: Compilation of hadoop-yarn-client failed
> > > > > edc881d BIGTOP-1902: typo in
> > > > bigtop-deploy/vm/vagrant-puppet-vm/vagrantconfig.yaml
> > > > > 885cd8f BIGTOP-1896. bigtop_toolchain broken bei ant update
> > > > >
> > > > > Now I would have to update CHANGES.txt and RELEASE notes for both
> > master
> > > > and
> > > > > the branch. To me, those weren't that critical to include into the
> > > > release,
> > > > > but I guess it makes no harm. Any other changes we have to hold the
> > > > release
> > > > > for?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Cos
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:14AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > > >> Ok, master is unlocked for 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT development
> > > > >> I have also pushed branch-1.0 that has all the bits for 1.0 RC,
> but
> > I
> > > > don't
> > > > >> have time to finish RC publishing up right now - will try to do it
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > >> train, but who knows if I will have any connection there.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If anyone can pick up where I left-off - it'd be great: I am
> really
> > > > trying to
> > > > >> get on my damn vacation ;) If not - I will try to find a bit of
> time
> > > > next week
> > > > >> for this.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks all for your help,
> > > > >> Cos
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 09:56AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > > >>> Indeed.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> The one hurdle I am facing though is that with BIGTOP-1833
> getting
> > > > pushed to
> > > > >>> the master (which I normally would appreciate ;) I have to fiddle
> > with
> > > > my
> > > > >>> local branches as they already had a commit for this fix. Now,
> > > > rebasing it
> > > > >>> locally presents an issue where I need to fix some unpleasant
> > > > conflicts in...
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Oh well, it will be done in a bit.
> > > > >>> Cos
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:37PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > > > >>>> I've committed the BIGTOP-1833 patch.
> > > > >>>> It's so exciting that we're at the moment ready to release
> bigtop
> > 1.0.
> > > > >>>> Please ping me if any help needed for release.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Evans
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> 2015-05-29 17:52 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> Guys,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I have made all preparations for 1.0 RC and changed everything
> we
> > > > need to
> > > > >>>>> move
> > > > >>>>> to 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT in the master.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> However, because BIGTOP-1833 hasn't been reviewed yet, I
> > evidently
> > > > haven't
> > > > >>>>> pushed this change and other commits to the master nor
> > branch-1.0. I
> > > > would
> > > > >>>>> unblock me immediately if someone can review BIGTOP-1833
> changes.
> > > > Then
> > > > >>>>> patch
> > > > >>>>> is rather trivial and I have tested it to make sure that the
> > > > packages are
> > > > >>>>> produced.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I'd love to switch off to the vacation mode by the end of the
> day
> > > > today but
> > > > >>>>> have to wrap up the RC process (at least the branch preparation
> > part)
> > > > >>>>> before
> > > > >>>>> that. So if someone in Europe (during the day here) or later in
> > NA
> > > > can do
> > > > >>>>> this
> > > > >>>>> at your early convenience - it'd be just great!
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks in advance!
> > > > >>>>> Cos
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 04:03PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 03:11PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> Also, working on BIGTOP-1851 right now. Please pardon the
> > delay, I
> > > > was
> > > > >>>>> sick
> > > > >>>>>>> over the weekend.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Thanks Andrew - hopefully are doing better now!
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > apurtell@apache.org>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Cool, I went over to BIGTOP-1615 and it's already resolved.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> As for BIGTOP-1827, if it's just a package naming problem we
> > can
> > > > just
> > > > >>>>>>>> rename it, right? See my comment on the issue.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <
> > > > cos@apache.org>
> > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Guys
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> I think we are in the good shape to cut-off 1.0 branch
> > tonight. I
> > > > >>>>> have ran
> > > > >>>>>>>>> full stack build on Ubuntu and everything is building fine
> > now.
> > > > Of
> > > > >>>>> course
> > > > >>>>>>>>> some
> > > > >>>>>>>>> testing needs to be done ;)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> One last unresolved blocker is BIGTOP-1827. If I don't hear
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Tachyon component's maintainers I will have to remove this
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > >>>>>>>>> release
> > > > >>>>>>>>> 1.0 because the packages are broken and we can release them
> > like
> > > > >>>>> this.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> BIGTOP-1615 (another blocker) is in PA state, so if anyone
> > can
> > > > take
> > > > >>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>> look -
> > > > >>>>>>>>> it'd be great!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Cos
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>  - Andy
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting
> back. -
> > > > Piet
> > > > >>>>> Hein
> > > > >>>>>>>> (via Tom White)
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>  - Andy
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back.
> -
> > Piet
> > > > >>>>> Hein
> > > > >>>>>>> (via Tom White)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > >    - Andy
> > >
> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > (via Tom White)
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>

Re: Gearing up for 1.0.0 (cut-off of the branch)

[Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>]

+1


On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:

> Agree. It's super easy to push site updates any time after the release is
> out.
> We are generating it our of the master anyway, so I see no reason to hold
> 1.0
> because of the website changes.
>
> So, shall I spin-out RC1 then?
>   Cos
>
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:17AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > We can fix the site after the release. I agree it will be important to
> get
> > the content up to date as close as possible to when the release goes out.
> > Are we doing svnpubsub? If so it should be straightforward to update. One
> > of us (maybe me) can regen while RC voting is underway and push upon
> > release.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de> wrote:
> >
> > > hi cos,
> > >
> > > thanks for asking.
> > >
> > > two of the new commits were critical since last minute changes broke
> > > compilation.
> > >
> > > I see no further technical Jiras waiting for inclusion into a 1.0 tag.
> > >
> > > But I am missing one „huge“ commit:
> > >
> > > Our web site is essentially a heap of obsolete stuff. Since the
> website is
> > > somehow generated from git, we should consolidate our site as well
> > > reflecting the 1.0 release (for instance removing 0.8 information from
> the
> > > frontpage). @all: Is there already any progress in this direction?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > olaf
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Am 01.07.2015 um 02:16 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > Guys,
> > > >
> > > > I have noticed that branch-1.0 is now having these three committs:
> > > >
> > > > 11dc343 BIGTOP-1893: Compilation of hadoop-yarn-client failed
> > > > edc881d BIGTOP-1902: typo in
> > > bigtop-deploy/vm/vagrant-puppet-vm/vagrantconfig.yaml
> > > > 885cd8f BIGTOP-1896. bigtop_toolchain broken bei ant update
> > > >
> > > > Now I would have to update CHANGES.txt and RELEASE notes for both
> master
> > > and
> > > > the branch. To me, those weren't that critical to include into the
> > > release,
> > > > but I guess it makes no harm. Any other changes we have to hold the
> > > release
> > > > for?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Cos
> > > >
> > > >> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:14AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > >> Ok, master is unlocked for 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT development
> > > >> I have also pushed branch-1.0 that has all the bits for 1.0 RC, but
> I
> > > don't
> > > >> have time to finish RC publishing up right now - will try to do it
> from
> > > the
> > > >> train, but who knows if I will have any connection there.
> > > >>
> > > >> If anyone can pick up where I left-off - it'd be great: I am really
> > > trying to
> > > >> get on my damn vacation ;) If not - I will try to find a bit of time
> > > next week
> > > >> for this.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks all for your help,
> > > >> Cos
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 09:56AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > >>> Indeed.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The one hurdle I am facing though is that with BIGTOP-1833 getting
> > > pushed to
> > > >>> the master (which I normally would appreciate ;) I have to fiddle
> with
> > > my
> > > >>> local branches as they already had a commit for this fix. Now,
> > > rebasing it
> > > >>> locally presents an issue where I need to fix some unpleasant
> > > conflicts in...
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Oh well, it will be done in a bit.
> > > >>> Cos
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:37PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > > >>>> I've committed the BIGTOP-1833 patch.
> > > >>>> It's so exciting that we're at the moment ready to release bigtop
> 1.0.
> > > >>>> Please ping me if any help needed for release.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Evans
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> 2015-05-29 17:52 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Guys,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I have made all preparations for 1.0 RC and changed everything we
> > > need to
> > > >>>>> move
> > > >>>>> to 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT in the master.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> However, because BIGTOP-1833 hasn't been reviewed yet, I
> evidently
> > > haven't
> > > >>>>> pushed this change and other commits to the master nor
> branch-1.0. I
> > > would
> > > >>>>> unblock me immediately if someone can review BIGTOP-1833 changes.
> > > Then
> > > >>>>> patch
> > > >>>>> is rather trivial and I have tested it to make sure that the
> > > packages are
> > > >>>>> produced.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I'd love to switch off to the vacation mode by the end of the day
> > > today but
> > > >>>>> have to wrap up the RC process (at least the branch preparation
> part)
> > > >>>>> before
> > > >>>>> that. So if someone in Europe (during the day here) or later in
> NA
> > > can do
> > > >>>>> this
> > > >>>>> at your early convenience - it'd be just great!
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks in advance!
> > > >>>>> Cos
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 04:03PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 03:11PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> Also, working on BIGTOP-1851 right now. Please pardon the
> delay, I
> > > was
> > > >>>>> sick
> > > >>>>>>> over the weekend.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Thanks Andrew - hopefully are doing better now!
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > apurtell@apache.org>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Cool, I went over to BIGTOP-1615 and it's already resolved.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> As for BIGTOP-1827, if it's just a package naming problem we
> can
> > > just
> > > >>>>>>>> rename it, right? See my comment on the issue.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <
> > > cos@apache.org>
> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Guys
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> I think we are in the good shape to cut-off 1.0 branch
> tonight. I
> > > >>>>> have ran
> > > >>>>>>>>> full stack build on Ubuntu and everything is building fine
> now.
> > > Of
> > > >>>>> course
> > > >>>>>>>>> some
> > > >>>>>>>>> testing needs to be done ;)
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> One last unresolved blocker is BIGTOP-1827. If I don't hear
> from
> > > the
> > > >>>>>>>>> Tachyon component's maintainers I will have to remove this
> from
> > > the
> > > >>>>>>>>> release
> > > >>>>>>>>> 1.0 because the packages are broken and we can release them
> like
> > > >>>>> this.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> BIGTOP-1615 (another blocker) is in PA state, so if anyone
> can
> > > take
> > > >>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>> look -
> > > >>>>>>>>> it'd be great!
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > >>>>>>>>> Cos
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>  - Andy
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. -
> > > Piet
> > > >>>>> Hein
> > > >>>>>>>> (via Tom White)
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>  - Andy
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. -
> Piet
> > > >>>>> Hein
> > > >>>>>>> (via Tom White)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >    - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

Re: Gearing up for 1.0.0 (cut-off of the branch)

[Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>]

Agree. It's super easy to push site updates any time after the release is out.
We are generating it our of the master anyway, so I see no reason to hold 1.0
because of the website changes.

So, shall I spin-out RC1 then?
  Cos

On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:17AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> We can fix the site after the release. I agree it will be important to get
> the content up to date as close as possible to when the release goes out.
> Are we doing svnpubsub? If so it should be straightforward to update. One
> of us (maybe me) can regen while RC voting is underway and push upon
> release.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de> wrote:
> 
> > hi cos,
> >
> > thanks for asking.
> >
> > two of the new commits were critical since last minute changes broke
> > compilation.
> >
> > I see no further technical Jiras waiting for inclusion into a 1.0 tag.
> >
> > But I am missing one „huge“ commit:
> >
> > Our web site is essentially a heap of obsolete stuff. Since the website is
> > somehow generated from git, we should consolidate our site as well
> > reflecting the 1.0 release (for instance removing 0.8 information from the
> > frontpage). @all: Is there already any progress in this direction?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > olaf
> >
> >
> >
> > > Am 01.07.2015 um 02:16 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > I have noticed that branch-1.0 is now having these three committs:
> > >
> > > 11dc343 BIGTOP-1893: Compilation of hadoop-yarn-client failed
> > > edc881d BIGTOP-1902: typo in
> > bigtop-deploy/vm/vagrant-puppet-vm/vagrantconfig.yaml
> > > 885cd8f BIGTOP-1896. bigtop_toolchain broken bei ant update
> > >
> > > Now I would have to update CHANGES.txt and RELEASE notes for both master
> > and
> > > the branch. To me, those weren't that critical to include into the
> > release,
> > > but I guess it makes no harm. Any other changes we have to hold the
> > release
> > > for?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Cos
> > >
> > >> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:14AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > >> Ok, master is unlocked for 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT development
> > >> I have also pushed branch-1.0 that has all the bits for 1.0 RC, but I
> > don't
> > >> have time to finish RC publishing up right now - will try to do it from
> > the
> > >> train, but who knows if I will have any connection there.
> > >>
> > >> If anyone can pick up where I left-off - it'd be great: I am really
> > trying to
> > >> get on my damn vacation ;) If not - I will try to find a bit of time
> > next week
> > >> for this.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks all for your help,
> > >> Cos
> > >>
> > >>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 09:56AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > >>> Indeed.
> > >>>
> > >>> The one hurdle I am facing though is that with BIGTOP-1833 getting
> > pushed to
> > >>> the master (which I normally would appreciate ;) I have to fiddle with
> > my
> > >>> local branches as they already had a commit for this fix. Now,
> > rebasing it
> > >>> locally presents an issue where I need to fix some unpleasant
> > conflicts in...
> > >>>
> > >>> Oh well, it will be done in a bit.
> > >>> Cos
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:37PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > >>>> I've committed the BIGTOP-1833 patch.
> > >>>> It's so exciting that we're at the moment ready to release bigtop 1.0.
> > >>>> Please ping me if any help needed for release.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Evans
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2015-05-29 17:52 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Guys,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I have made all preparations for 1.0 RC and changed everything we
> > need to
> > >>>>> move
> > >>>>> to 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT in the master.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> However, because BIGTOP-1833 hasn't been reviewed yet, I evidently
> > haven't
> > >>>>> pushed this change and other commits to the master nor branch-1.0. I
> > would
> > >>>>> unblock me immediately if someone can review BIGTOP-1833 changes.
> > Then
> > >>>>> patch
> > >>>>> is rather trivial and I have tested it to make sure that the
> > packages are
> > >>>>> produced.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I'd love to switch off to the vacation mode by the end of the day
> > today but
> > >>>>> have to wrap up the RC process (at least the branch preparation part)
> > >>>>> before
> > >>>>> that. So if someone in Europe (during the day here) or later in NA
> > can do
> > >>>>> this
> > >>>>> at your early convenience - it'd be just great!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks in advance!
> > >>>>> Cos
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 04:03PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 03:11PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Also, working on BIGTOP-1851 right now. Please pardon the delay, I
> > was
> > >>>>> sick
> > >>>>>>> over the weekend.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Thanks Andrew - hopefully are doing better now!
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > apurtell@apache.org>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Cool, I went over to BIGTOP-1615 and it's already resolved.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> As for BIGTOP-1827, if it's just a package naming problem we can
> > just
> > >>>>>>>> rename it, right? See my comment on the issue.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <
> > cos@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Guys
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I think we are in the good shape to cut-off 1.0 branch tonight. I
> > >>>>> have ran
> > >>>>>>>>> full stack build on Ubuntu and everything is building fine now.
> > Of
> > >>>>> course
> > >>>>>>>>> some
> > >>>>>>>>> testing needs to be done ;)
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> One last unresolved blocker is BIGTOP-1827. If I don't hear from
> > the
> > >>>>>>>>> Tachyon component's maintainers I will have to remove this from
> > the
> > >>>>>>>>> release
> > >>>>>>>>> 1.0 because the packages are broken and we can release them like
> > >>>>> this.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> BIGTOP-1615 (another blocker) is in PA state, so if anyone can
> > take
> > >>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>> look -
> > >>>>>>>>> it'd be great!
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > >>>>>>>>> Cos
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>  - Andy
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. -
> > Piet
> > >>>>> Hein
> > >>>>>>>> (via Tom White)
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>> Best regards,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>  - Andy
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > >>>>> Hein
> > >>>>>>> (via Tom White)
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> 
>    - Andy
> 
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)

Re: Gearing up for 1.0.0 (cut-off of the branch)

[Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>]

We can fix the site after the release. I agree it will be important to get
the content up to date as close as possible to when the release goes out.
Are we doing svnpubsub? If so it should be straightforward to update. One
of us (maybe me) can regen while RC voting is underway and push upon
release.


On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de> wrote:

> hi cos,
>
> thanks for asking.
>
> two of the new commits were critical since last minute changes broke
> compilation.
>
> I see no further technical Jiras waiting for inclusion into a 1.0 tag.
>
> But I am missing one „huge“ commit:
>
> Our web site is essentially a heap of obsolete stuff. Since the website is
> somehow generated from git, we should consolidate our site as well
> reflecting the 1.0 release (for instance removing 0.8 information from the
> frontpage). @all: Is there already any progress in this direction?
>
> Thanks,
> olaf
>
>
>
> > Am 01.07.2015 um 02:16 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> >
> > Guys,
> >
> > I have noticed that branch-1.0 is now having these three committs:
> >
> > 11dc343 BIGTOP-1893: Compilation of hadoop-yarn-client failed
> > edc881d BIGTOP-1902: typo in
> bigtop-deploy/vm/vagrant-puppet-vm/vagrantconfig.yaml
> > 885cd8f BIGTOP-1896. bigtop_toolchain broken bei ant update
> >
> > Now I would have to update CHANGES.txt and RELEASE notes for both master
> and
> > the branch. To me, those weren't that critical to include into the
> release,
> > but I guess it makes no harm. Any other changes we have to hold the
> release
> > for?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cos
> >
> >> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:14AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> >> Ok, master is unlocked for 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT development
> >> I have also pushed branch-1.0 that has all the bits for 1.0 RC, but I
> don't
> >> have time to finish RC publishing up right now - will try to do it from
> the
> >> train, but who knows if I will have any connection there.
> >>
> >> If anyone can pick up where I left-off - it'd be great: I am really
> trying to
> >> get on my damn vacation ;) If not - I will try to find a bit of time
> next week
> >> for this.
> >>
> >> Thanks all for your help,
> >> Cos
> >>
> >>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 09:56AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> >>> Indeed.
> >>>
> >>> The one hurdle I am facing though is that with BIGTOP-1833 getting
> pushed to
> >>> the master (which I normally would appreciate ;) I have to fiddle with
> my
> >>> local branches as they already had a commit for this fix. Now,
> rebasing it
> >>> locally presents an issue where I need to fix some unpleasant
> conflicts in...
> >>>
> >>> Oh well, it will be done in a bit.
> >>> Cos
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:37PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> >>>> I've committed the BIGTOP-1833 patch.
> >>>> It's so exciting that we're at the moment ready to release bigtop 1.0.
> >>>> Please ping me if any help needed for release.
> >>>>
> >>>> Evans
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2015-05-29 17:52 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Guys,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have made all preparations for 1.0 RC and changed everything we
> need to
> >>>>> move
> >>>>> to 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT in the master.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> However, because BIGTOP-1833 hasn't been reviewed yet, I evidently
> haven't
> >>>>> pushed this change and other commits to the master nor branch-1.0. I
> would
> >>>>> unblock me immediately if someone can review BIGTOP-1833 changes.
> Then
> >>>>> patch
> >>>>> is rather trivial and I have tested it to make sure that the
> packages are
> >>>>> produced.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'd love to switch off to the vacation mode by the end of the day
> today but
> >>>>> have to wrap up the RC process (at least the branch preparation part)
> >>>>> before
> >>>>> that. So if someone in Europe (during the day here) or later in NA
> can do
> >>>>> this
> >>>>> at your early convenience - it'd be just great!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks in advance!
> >>>>> Cos
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 04:03PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 03:11PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> >>>>>>> Also, working on BIGTOP-1851 right now. Please pardon the delay, I
> was
> >>>>> sick
> >>>>>>> over the weekend.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks Andrew - hopefully are doing better now!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> apurtell@apache.org>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Cool, I went over to BIGTOP-1615 and it's already resolved.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As for BIGTOP-1827, if it's just a package naming problem we can
> just
> >>>>>>>> rename it, right? See my comment on the issue.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <
> cos@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Guys
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I think we are in the good shape to cut-off 1.0 branch tonight. I
> >>>>> have ran
> >>>>>>>>> full stack build on Ubuntu and everything is building fine now.
> Of
> >>>>> course
> >>>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>> testing needs to be done ;)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> One last unresolved blocker is BIGTOP-1827. If I don't hear from
> the
> >>>>>>>>> Tachyon component's maintainers I will have to remove this from
> the
> >>>>>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>>> 1.0 because the packages are broken and we can release them like
> >>>>> this.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> BIGTOP-1615 (another blocker) is in PA state, so if anyone can
> take
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>> look -
> >>>>>>>>> it'd be great!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>>>>> Cos
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>  - Andy
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. -
> Piet
> >>>>> Hein
> >>>>>>>> (via Tom White)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  - Andy
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> >>>>> Hein
> >>>>>>> (via Tom White)
> >
> >
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

Re: Gearing up for 1.0.0 (cut-off of the branch)

[Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>]

hi cos,

thanks for asking.

two of the new commits were critical since last minute changes broke compilation.

I see no further technical Jiras waiting for inclusion into a 1.0 tag.

But I am missing one „huge“ commit:

Our web site is essentially a heap of obsolete stuff. Since the website is somehow generated from git, we should consolidate our site as well reflecting the 1.0 release (for instance removing 0.8 information from the frontpage). @all: Is there already any progress in this direction?

Thanks,
olaf



> Am 01.07.2015 um 02:16 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> 
> Guys,
> 
> I have noticed that branch-1.0 is now having these three committs:
> 
> 11dc343 BIGTOP-1893: Compilation of hadoop-yarn-client failed
> edc881d BIGTOP-1902: typo in bigtop-deploy/vm/vagrant-puppet-vm/vagrantconfig.yaml
> 885cd8f BIGTOP-1896. bigtop_toolchain broken bei ant update
> 
> Now I would have to update CHANGES.txt and RELEASE notes for both master and
> the branch. To me, those weren't that critical to include into the release,
> but I guess it makes no harm. Any other changes we have to hold the release
> for?
> 
> Thanks,
> Cos
> 
>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:14AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>> Ok, master is unlocked for 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT development
>> I have also pushed branch-1.0 that has all the bits for 1.0 RC, but I don't
>> have time to finish RC publishing up right now - will try to do it from the
>> train, but who knows if I will have any connection there.
>> 
>> If anyone can pick up where I left-off - it'd be great: I am really trying to
>> get on my damn vacation ;) If not - I will try to find a bit of time next week
>> for this.
>> 
>> Thanks all for your help,
>> Cos
>> 
>>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 09:56AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>>> Indeed.
>>> 
>>> The one hurdle I am facing though is that with BIGTOP-1833 getting pushed to
>>> the master (which I normally would appreciate ;) I have to fiddle with my
>>> local branches as they already had a commit for this fix. Now, rebasing it
>>> locally presents an issue where I need to fix some unpleasant conflicts in...
>>> 
>>> Oh well, it will be done in a bit.
>>> Cos
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:37PM, Evans Ye wrote:
>>>> I've committed the BIGTOP-1833 patch.
>>>> It's so exciting that we're at the moment ready to release bigtop 1.0.
>>>> Please ping me if any help needed for release.
>>>> 
>>>> Evans
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2015-05-29 17:52 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
>>>> 
>>>>> Guys,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have made all preparations for 1.0 RC and changed everything we need to
>>>>> move
>>>>> to 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT in the master.
>>>>> 
>>>>> However, because BIGTOP-1833 hasn't been reviewed yet, I evidently haven't
>>>>> pushed this change and other commits to the master nor branch-1.0. I would
>>>>> unblock me immediately if someone can review BIGTOP-1833 changes. Then
>>>>> patch
>>>>> is rather trivial and I have tested it to make sure that the packages are
>>>>> produced.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'd love to switch off to the vacation mode by the end of the day today but
>>>>> have to wrap up the RC process (at least the branch preparation part)
>>>>> before
>>>>> that. So if someone in Europe (during the day here) or later in NA can do
>>>>> this
>>>>> at your early convenience - it'd be just great!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks in advance!
>>>>> Cos
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 04:03PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 03:11PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>>>>>>> Also, working on BIGTOP-1851 right now. Please pardon the delay, I was
>>>>> sick
>>>>>>> over the weekend.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks Andrew - hopefully are doing better now!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Cool, I went over to BIGTOP-1615 and it's already resolved.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> As for BIGTOP-1827, if it's just a package naming problem we can just
>>>>>>>> rename it, right? See my comment on the issue.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Guys
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I think we are in the good shape to cut-off 1.0 branch tonight. I
>>>>> have ran
>>>>>>>>> full stack build on Ubuntu and everything is building fine now. Of
>>>>> course
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> testing needs to be done ;)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> One last unresolved blocker is BIGTOP-1827. If I don't hear from the
>>>>>>>>> Tachyon component's maintainers I will have to remove this from the
>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>> 1.0 because the packages are broken and we can release them like
>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> BIGTOP-1615 (another blocker) is in PA state, so if anyone can take
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> look -
>>>>>>>>> it'd be great!
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>> Cos
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>  - Andy
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
>>>>> Hein
>>>>>>>> (via Tom White)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  - Andy
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
>>>>> Hein
>>>>>>> (via Tom White)
> 
>