You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@hawq.apache.org by Goden Yao <go...@apache.org> on 2016/07/01 17:23:23 UTC

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Just a reminder: please download the source tarball, compile and check if
there's any issues related to IP.
Appreciate your feedback

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:19 PM Goden Yao <go...@apache.org> wrote:

> This is the 1st release for Apache HAWQ (incubating), version:
> 2.0.0-incubating
>
> *It fixes the following issues:*
> Clear all IP related issues for HAWQ and this is a source code tarball
> only release.
> Full list of JIRAs fixed/related to the release: link
> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/HAWQ+Release+2.0.0-incubating>
>
> *** Please download, review and vote by *Friday 6pm July 8, 2016 PST* ***
> or When we have enough votes to bring this source tarball to IPMC
>
> *We're voting upon the source branch:*
> 2.0.0-incubating
>
> *Source Files:*
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/2.0.0-incubating
>
> *KEYS file containing PGP Keys we use to sign the release:*
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/KEYS
>
> Thanks
> -Goden
>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.

Thanks! I've also filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-914
which I would
leave up to Goden to decide how blocking for the 2.0.0.0-incubating
release it really is.

And also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-915 which is
definitely a blocker.

Thanks,
Roman.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> I'm reactivating this JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-751 (Add
> plr, pgcrypto, gporca into Apache HAWQ)
> We need to review and discuss the original implementation. (re: Roman's
> plr, cryptograph issue)
>
> A few new ones related, could be blocker (-1)
>
>    - *https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-838
>    <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-838> *(add paramiko, which
>    is LGPL <https://github.com/paramiko/paramiko/blob/master/LICENSE>)
>    - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-863 (add pycrypto python
>    module, license file
>    <https://github.com/dlitz/pycrypto/blob/master/COPYRIGHT>seems
>    ambiguous, also introduced dependency for build)
>
> I filed a new JIRA to address:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-913 (please fill in details or
> leave comments)
> "*...I highly recommend having a CI job that runs mvn verify on a regular
> basis..."*
>
> Thrift one was introduced by: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-735
> Please check if we should reopen and address Roman's concerns.
>
> -Goden
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 9:33 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> > Hi Goden,
>> >
>> > I have pushed commits of 'HAWQ-892
>> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892>' and 'HAWQ-901
>> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-901>' into branch
>> > '2.0.0.0-incubating'.
>>
>> Ok, with these two additional commits I presumed the branch was ready
>> for review. I'm not done with the full review yet, but here are the top
>> concerns
>> that would make me -1 this branch if it did go for a vote:
>>    0. mvn verify produces tons of RAT check failures that need to be
>> carefully
>>    analyzed. As an aside -- I highly recommend having a CI job that
>> runs mvn verify
>>    on a regular basis.
>>
>>    1. Pulling source from external repositories in an unconditional way.
>>     There's quite a bit of 'git clone' going on in the build system.
>> The easiest way
>>     to see it all is to run
>>        $ git grep -R 'git ' . | grep clone
>>     My first concern is that all of these calls need to be made
>> conditional. IOW,
>>     I should be able to build a basic HAWQ binary without it doing
>> 'git clone' and
>>     instead relying on pointers to the same binary dependencies provided
>> via
>>     build configuration. This could be a documentation issue and if so
>> I'd appreciate
>>     having it published on the wiki some place.
>>
>>     On top of that, we have two bigger issues with the following repos:
>>         https://github.com/jconway/plr.git  -- GPL
>>         https://github.com/postgres/postgres.git -- Cryptography
>>
>>     We need to make sure that HAWQ can be built with those altogether.'
>>
>>     2. As a minor nit, I see that you imported thrift source under
>> depends/thirdparty/thrift
>>     and it would be great if there were a way to:
>>         2.1. make sure that it is obvious what *release* version of
>> thrift it was
>>         2.2. make sure that it is obvious if anything in there gets patched
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by "Ting(Goden) Yao" <ty...@pivotal.io>.

I'm reactivating this JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-751 (Add
plr, pgcrypto, gporca into Apache HAWQ)
We need to review and discuss the original implementation. (re: Roman's
plr, cryptograph issue)

A few new ones related, could be blocker (-1)

   - *https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-838
   <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-838> *(add paramiko, which
   is LGPL <https://github.com/paramiko/paramiko/blob/master/LICENSE>)
   - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-863 (add pycrypto python
   module, license file
   <https://github.com/dlitz/pycrypto/blob/master/COPYRIGHT>seems
   ambiguous, also introduced dependency for build)

I filed a new JIRA to address:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-913 (please fill in details or
leave comments)
"*...I highly recommend having a CI job that runs mvn verify on a regular
basis..."*

Thrift one was introduced by: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-735
Please check if we should reopen and address Roman's concerns.

-Goden

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 9:33 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > Hi Goden,
> >
> > I have pushed commits of 'HAWQ-892
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892>' and 'HAWQ-901
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-901>' into branch
> > '2.0.0.0-incubating'.
>
> Ok, with these two additional commits I presumed the branch was ready
> for review. I'm not done with the full review yet, but here are the top
> concerns
> that would make me -1 this branch if it did go for a vote:
>    0. mvn verify produces tons of RAT check failures that need to be
> carefully
>    analyzed. As an aside -- I highly recommend having a CI job that
> runs mvn verify
>    on a regular basis.
>
>    1. Pulling source from external repositories in an unconditional way.
>     There's quite a bit of 'git clone' going on in the build system.
> The easiest way
>     to see it all is to run
>        $ git grep -R 'git ' . | grep clone
>     My first concern is that all of these calls need to be made
> conditional. IOW,
>     I should be able to build a basic HAWQ binary without it doing
> 'git clone' and
>     instead relying on pointers to the same binary dependencies provided
> via
>     build configuration. This could be a documentation issue and if so
> I'd appreciate
>     having it published on the wiki some place.
>
>     On top of that, we have two bigger issues with the following repos:
>         https://github.com/jconway/plr.git  -- GPL
>         https://github.com/postgres/postgres.git -- Cryptography
>
>     We need to make sure that HAWQ can be built with those altogether.'
>
>     2. As a minor nit, I see that you imported thrift source under
> depends/thirdparty/thrift
>     and it would be great if there were a way to:
>         2.1. make sure that it is obvious what *release* version of
> thrift it was
>         2.2. make sure that it is obvious if anything in there gets patched
>
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>

Re: HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by Goden Yao <go...@apache.org>.

Thanks Alan.

Just a reminder - when you do commits in master, please check the JIRA
associated with it and if it's labeled "2.0.0.0-incubating" in fix version,
please port your commits to the release branch and close the JIRA.

I can see in the past a couple days,

   - HAWQ-915 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-915> RAT is
   failing on the latest maste
   - HAWQ-926 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-926> Remove
   pycrypto from source code

They're both needed in this release but I don't see them being ported to
the release branch and as the JIRAs stay open, I'm not sure if the
assignees plan to augment the commits or not.

Please check. thank you.

-Goden

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 5:10 PM Alan Gates <al...@gmail.com> wrote:

> All, [VOTE] should only be in the subject when it’s actually a vote, as
> many people set their filters to send vote mails to a place they’ll be
> quickly seen, and other Apache tools depend on seeing VOTE for actual
> votes.  As this is now a dicussion of how to get ready for a 2.0 release,
> I’m replying just to change the subject of the message.
>
> Alan.
>
> > On Jul 14, 2016, at 17:03, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > seems not good.
> > I’m attaching the 3 text files for the scan results based on grep
> >
> > grep -iRnH  --exclude="config.log" 'pivotal' * > ~/pivotal.txt
> > grep -iRnH  --exclude="config.log" 'greenplum' * > ~/greenplum.txt
> > grep -iRnH  --exclude="config.log" ' emc' * > ~/emc.txt
> >
> > ‘pivotal’ has 635 occurrences
> > ‘greenplum’ has 2297 occurrences
> > ‘ emc’ has 10 occurrences
> >
> > Mainly in
> >
> >
> >       • package namespace
> >       • test files
> >
> > 3 scan results are attached.
> >
> > -Goden
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 3:49 PM Roman Shaposhnik roman@shaposhnik.org
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Goden, any chance you can do a bulk scan of source for
> > Pivotal/Greenplum Inc/EMC and see how well we're doing in general?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > > found a new one:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-622  might need to be
> resolved
> > > before this release.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 7:04 AM Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Seems now all the blockers are fixed. Waiting merge into the branch.
> > >>
> > >> I will merge HAWQ-926 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-926
> >
> > >> into
> > >> the release branch after RAT changes are in to avoid conflict.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Radar
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:27 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Per the discussion: we now still have 2 issues:
> > >> >
> > >> >    - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-915 (RAT check
> issues),
> > >> >    this is being worked on
> > >> >    - make pycrypto dependency optional : there's contradictory JIRAs
> > >> >    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-863 (add pycrypto
> module
> > >> >    back) - fixed
> > >> >    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-271 (remove python
> > >> modules)
> > >> > -
> > >> >    fixed
> > >> >    Please whoever knows the details, file a new JIRA , so we start
> with a
> > >> >    clean slate for this release.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks
> > >> > -Goden
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 4:22 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > HAWQ-919 has been resolved and ported to 2.0.0.0-incubating
> branch.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:45 AM Paul Guo <pa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> I've sent a pull request to resolve the rat issue,
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>            https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/pull/788
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> There are still several pxf related files which have license
> issues.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> We filed another JIRA to let the pxf guys fix this.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-919>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>       https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-919
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> 2016-07-12 11:00 GMT+08:00 Paul Guo <pa...@gmail.com>:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > 0. Yes, RAT check failures need to be handled. I do not know
> much
> > >> > about
> > >> > >> RAT
> > >> > >> >     but if we could just check affect files of one patch I'd
> 100%
> > >> > agree
> > >> > >> it
> > >> > >> > is in CI.
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > 1. Those "git-cloned" repo are "git-cloned" only when necessary
> > >> (i.e.
> > >> > >> when
> > >> > >> >     related options are specified in configure command.
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > 2. The thrift info has been in the ImportLogs file. I'd
> suggest move
> > >> > >> this
> > >> > >> > (probably
> > >> > >> >      with more details) into the README file.
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > 2016-07-12 0:33 GMT+08:00 Roman Shaposhnik <
> roman@shaposhnik.org>:
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Radar Da lei <
> rlei@pivotal.io>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >> >> > Hi Goden,
> > >> > >> >> >
> > >> > >> >> > I have pushed commits of 'HAWQ-892
> > >> > >> >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892>' and
> 'HAWQ-901
> > >> > >> >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-901>' into
> branch
> > >> > >> >> > '2.0.0.0-incubating'.
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >> Ok, with these two additional commits I presumed the branch
> was
> > >> ready
> > >> > >> >> for review. I'm not done with the full review yet, but here
> are the
> > >> > top
> > >> > >> >> concerns
> > >> > >> >> that would make me -1 this branch if it did go for a vote:
> > >> > >> >>    0. mvn verify produces tons of RAT check failures that
> need to
> > >> be
> > >> > >> >> carefully
> > >> > >> >>    analyzed. As an aside -- I highly recommend having a CI
> job that
> > >> > >> >> runs mvn verify
> > >> > >> >>    on a regular basis.
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >>    1. Pulling source from external repositories in an
> unconditional
> > >> > >> way.
> > >> > >> >>     There's quite a bit of 'git clone' going on in the build
> > >> system.
> > >> > >> >> The easiest way
> > >> > >> >>     to see it all is to run
> > >> > >> >>        $ git grep -R 'git ' . | grep clone
> > >> > >> >>     My first concern is that all of these calls need to be
> made
> > >> > >> >> conditional. IOW,
> > >> > >> >>     I should be able to build a basic HAWQ binary without it
> doing
> > >> > >> >> 'git clone' and
> > >> > >> >>     instead relying on pointers to the same binary
> dependencies
> > >> > >> provided
> > >> > >> >> via
> > >> > >> >>     build configuration. This could be a documentation issue
> and if
> > >> > so
> > >> > >> >> I'd appreciate
> > >> > >> >>     having it published on the wiki some place.
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >>     On top of that, we have two bigger issues with the
> following
> > >> > repos:
> > >> > >> >>         https://github.com/jconway/plr.git  -- GPL
> > >> > >> >>         https://github.com/postgres/postgres.git --
> Cryptography
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >>     We need to make sure that HAWQ can be built with those
> > >> > altogether.'
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >>     2. As a minor nit, I see that you imported thrift source
> under
> > >> > >> >> depends/thirdparty/thrift
> > >> > >> >>     and it would be great if there were a way to:
> > >> > >> >>         2.1. make sure that it is obvious what *release*
> version of
> > >> > >> >> thrift it was
> > >> > >> >>         2.2. make sure that it is obvious if anything in
> there gets
> > >> > >> >> patched
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >> Thanks,
> > >> > >> >> Roman.
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> >
> > <emc.txt><pivotal.txt><greenplum.txt>
>
>

HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by Alan Gates <al...@gmail.com>.

All, [VOTE] should only be in the subject when it’s actually a vote, as many people set their filters to send vote mails to a place they’ll be quickly seen, and other Apache tools depend on seeing VOTE for actual votes.  As this is now a dicussion of how to get ready for a 2.0 release, I’m replying just to change the subject of the message.

Alan.

> On Jul 14, 2016, at 17:03, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> 
> seems not good.
> I’m attaching the 3 text files for the scan results based on grep
> 
> grep -iRnH  --exclude="config.log" 'pivotal' * > ~/pivotal.txt
> grep -iRnH  --exclude="config.log" 'greenplum' * > ~/greenplum.txt
> grep -iRnH  --exclude="config.log" ' emc' * > ~/emc.txt
> 
> ‘pivotal’ has 635 occurrences
> ‘greenplum’ has 2297 occurrences
> ‘ emc’ has 10 occurrences
> 
> Mainly in
> 
> 
> 	• package namespace
> 	• test files
> 
> 3 scan results are attached.
> 
> -Goden
> 
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 3:49 PM Roman Shaposhnik roman@shaposhnik.org wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Goden, any chance you can do a bulk scan of source for
> Pivotal/Greenplum Inc/EMC and see how well we're doing in general?
> 
> Thanks,
> Roman.
> 
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > found a new one:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-622  might need to be resolved
> > before this release.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 7:04 AM Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> >> Seems now all the blockers are fixed. Waiting merge into the branch.
> >>
> >> I will merge HAWQ-926 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-926>
> >> into
> >> the release branch after RAT changes are in to avoid conflict.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Radar
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:27 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Per the discussion: we now still have 2 issues:
> >> >
> >> >    - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-915 (RAT check issues),
> >> >    this is being worked on
> >> >    - make pycrypto dependency optional : there's contradictory JIRAs
> >> >    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-863 (add pycrypto module
> >> >    back) - fixed
> >> >    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-271 (remove python
> >> modules)
> >> > -
> >> >    fixed
> >> >    Please whoever knows the details, file a new JIRA , so we start with a
> >> >    clean slate for this release.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> > -Goden
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 4:22 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > HAWQ-919 has been resolved and ported to 2.0.0.0-incubating branch.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:45 AM Paul Guo <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> I've sent a pull request to resolve the rat issue,
> >> > >>
> >> > >>            https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/pull/788
> >> > >>
> >> > >> There are still several pxf related files which have license issues.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> We filed another JIRA to let the pxf guys fix this.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-919>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>       https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-919
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 2016-07-12 11:00 GMT+08:00 Paul Guo <pa...@gmail.com>:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > 0. Yes, RAT check failures need to be handled. I do not know much
> >> > about
> >> > >> RAT
> >> > >> >     but if we could just check affect files of one patch I'd 100%
> >> > agree
> >> > >> it
> >> > >> > is in CI.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > 1. Those "git-cloned" repo are "git-cloned" only when necessary
> >> (i.e.
> >> > >> when
> >> > >> >     related options are specified in configure command.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > 2. The thrift info has been in the ImportLogs file. I'd suggest move
> >> > >> this
> >> > >> > (probably
> >> > >> >      with more details) into the README file.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > 2016-07-12 0:33 GMT+08:00 Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >> >> > Hi Goden,
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> > I have pushed commits of 'HAWQ-892
> >> > >> >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892>' and 'HAWQ-901
> >> > >> >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-901>' into branch
> >> > >> >> > '2.0.0.0-incubating'.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Ok, with these two additional commits I presumed the branch was
> >> ready
> >> > >> >> for review. I'm not done with the full review yet, but here are the
> >> > top
> >> > >> >> concerns
> >> > >> >> that would make me -1 this branch if it did go for a vote:
> >> > >> >>    0. mvn verify produces tons of RAT check failures that need to
> >> be
> >> > >> >> carefully
> >> > >> >>    analyzed. As an aside -- I highly recommend having a CI job that
> >> > >> >> runs mvn verify
> >> > >> >>    on a regular basis.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >>    1. Pulling source from external repositories in an unconditional
> >> > >> way.
> >> > >> >>     There's quite a bit of 'git clone' going on in the build
> >> system.
> >> > >> >> The easiest way
> >> > >> >>     to see it all is to run
> >> > >> >>        $ git grep -R 'git ' . | grep clone
> >> > >> >>     My first concern is that all of these calls need to be made
> >> > >> >> conditional. IOW,
> >> > >> >>     I should be able to build a basic HAWQ binary without it doing
> >> > >> >> 'git clone' and
> >> > >> >>     instead relying on pointers to the same binary dependencies
> >> > >> provided
> >> > >> >> via
> >> > >> >>     build configuration. This could be a documentation issue and if
> >> > so
> >> > >> >> I'd appreciate
> >> > >> >>     having it published on the wiki some place.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >>     On top of that, we have two bigger issues with the following
> >> > repos:
> >> > >> >>         https://github.com/jconway/plr.git  -- GPL
> >> > >> >>         https://github.com/postgres/postgres.git -- Cryptography
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >>     We need to make sure that HAWQ can be built with those
> >> > altogether.'
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >>     2. As a minor nit, I see that you imported thrift source under
> >> > >> >> depends/thirdparty/thrift
> >> > >> >>     and it would be great if there were a way to:
> >> > >> >>         2.1. make sure that it is obvious what *release* version of
> >> > >> >> thrift it was
> >> > >> >>         2.2. make sure that it is obvious if anything in there gets
> >> > >> >> patched
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Thanks,
> >> > >> >> Roman.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> 
> 
> <emc.txt><pivotal.txt><greenplum.txt>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by "Ting(Goden) Yao" <ty...@pivotal.io>.

seems not good.
I’m attaching the 3 text files for the scan results based on grep

grep -iRnH  --exclude="config.log" 'pivotal' * > ~/pivotal.txt
grep -iRnH  --exclude="config.log" 'greenplum' * > ~/greenplum.txt
grep -iRnH  --exclude="config.log" ' emc' * > ~/emc.txt

‘pivotal’ has 635 occurrences
‘greenplum’ has 2297 occurrences
‘ emc’ has 10 occurrences

Mainly in


   - package namespace
   - test files

3 scan results are attached.

-Goden

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 3:49 PM Roman Shaposhnik roman@shaposhnik.org
<ht...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:

Goden, any chance you can do a bulk scan of source for
> Pivotal/Greenplum Inc/EMC and see how well we're doing in general?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > found a new one:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-622  might need to be
> resolved
> > before this release.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 7:04 AM Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> >> Seems now all the blockers are fixed. Waiting merge into the branch.
> >>
> >> I will merge HAWQ-926 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-926>
> >> into
> >> the release branch after RAT changes are in to avoid conflict.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Radar
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:27 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Per the discussion: we now still have 2 issues:
> >> >
> >> >    - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-915 (RAT check
> issues),
> >> >    this is being worked on
> >> >    - make pycrypto dependency optional : there's contradictory JIRAs
> >> >    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-863 (add pycrypto
> module
> >> >    back) - fixed
> >> >    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-271 (remove python
> >> modules)
> >> > -
> >> >    fixed
> >> >    Please whoever knows the details, file a new JIRA , so we start
> with a
> >> >    clean slate for this release.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> > -Goden
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 4:22 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > HAWQ-919 has been resolved and ported to 2.0.0.0-incubating branch.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:45 AM Paul Guo <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> I've sent a pull request to resolve the rat issue,
> >> > >>
> >> > >>            https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/pull/788
> >> > >>
> >> > >> There are still several pxf related files which have license
> issues.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> We filed another JIRA to let the pxf guys fix this.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-919>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>       https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-919
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 2016-07-12 11:00 GMT+08:00 Paul Guo <pa...@gmail.com>:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > 0. Yes, RAT check failures need to be handled. I do not know much
> >> > about
> >> > >> RAT
> >> > >> >     but if we could just check affect files of one patch I'd 100%
> >> > agree
> >> > >> it
> >> > >> > is in CI.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > 1. Those "git-cloned" repo are "git-cloned" only when necessary
> >> (i.e.
> >> > >> when
> >> > >> >     related options are specified in configure command.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > 2. The thrift info has been in the ImportLogs file. I'd suggest
> move
> >> > >> this
> >> > >> > (probably
> >> > >> >      with more details) into the README file.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > 2016-07-12 0:33 GMT+08:00 Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org
> >:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >> >> > Hi Goden,
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> > I have pushed commits of 'HAWQ-892
> >> > >> >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892>' and
> 'HAWQ-901
> >> > >> >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-901>' into branch
> >> > >> >> > '2.0.0.0-incubating'.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Ok, with these two additional commits I presumed the branch was
> >> ready
> >> > >> >> for review. I'm not done with the full review yet, but here are
> the
> >> > top
> >> > >> >> concerns
> >> > >> >> that would make me -1 this branch if it did go for a vote:
> >> > >> >>    0. mvn verify produces tons of RAT check failures that need
> to
> >> be
> >> > >> >> carefully
> >> > >> >>    analyzed. As an aside -- I highly recommend having a CI job
> that
> >> > >> >> runs mvn verify
> >> > >> >>    on a regular basis.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >>    1. Pulling source from external repositories in an
> unconditional
> >> > >> way.
> >> > >> >>     There's quite a bit of 'git clone' going on in the build
> >> system.
> >> > >> >> The easiest way
> >> > >> >>     to see it all is to run
> >> > >> >>        $ git grep -R 'git ' . | grep clone
> >> > >> >>     My first concern is that all of these calls need to be made
> >> > >> >> conditional. IOW,
> >> > >> >>     I should be able to build a basic HAWQ binary without it
> doing
> >> > >> >> 'git clone' and
> >> > >> >>     instead relying on pointers to the same binary dependencies
> >> > >> provided
> >> > >> >> via
> >> > >> >>     build configuration. This could be a documentation issue
> and if
> >> > so
> >> > >> >> I'd appreciate
> >> > >> >>     having it published on the wiki some place.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >>     On top of that, we have two bigger issues with the following
> >> > repos:
> >> > >> >>         https://github.com/jconway/plr.git  -- GPL
> >> > >> >>         https://github.com/postgres/postgres.git --
> Cryptography
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >>     We need to make sure that HAWQ can be built with those
> >> > altogether.'
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >>     2. As a minor nit, I see that you imported thrift source
> under
> >> > >> >> depends/thirdparty/thrift
> >> > >> >>     and it would be great if there were a way to:
> >> > >> >>         2.1. make sure that it is obvious what *release*
> version of
> >> > >> >> thrift it was
> >> > >> >>         2.2. make sure that it is obvious if anything in there
> gets
> >> > >> >> patched
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Thanks,
> >> > >> >> Roman.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.

Goden, any chance you can do a bulk scan of source for
Pivotal/Greenplum Inc/EMC and see how well we're doing in general?

Thanks,
Roman.

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> found a new one:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-622  might need to be resolved
> before this release.
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 7:04 AM Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
>> Seems now all the blockers are fixed. Waiting merge into the branch.
>>
>> I will merge HAWQ-926 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-926>
>> into
>> the release branch after RAT changes are in to avoid conflict.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Radar
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:27 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>
>> > Per the discussion: we now still have 2 issues:
>> >
>> >    - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-915 (RAT check issues),
>> >    this is being worked on
>> >    - make pycrypto dependency optional : there's contradictory JIRAs
>> >    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-863 (add pycrypto module
>> >    back) - fixed
>> >    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-271 (remove python
>> modules)
>> > -
>> >    fixed
>> >    Please whoever knows the details, file a new JIRA , so we start with a
>> >    clean slate for this release.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > -Goden
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 4:22 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> >
>> > > HAWQ-919 has been resolved and ported to 2.0.0.0-incubating branch.
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:45 AM Paul Guo <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> I've sent a pull request to resolve the rat issue,
>> > >>
>> > >>            https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/pull/788
>> > >>
>> > >> There are still several pxf related files which have license issues.
>> > >>
>> > >> We filed another JIRA to let the pxf guys fix this.
>> > >>
>> > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-919>
>> > >>
>> > >>       https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-919
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> 2016-07-12 11:00 GMT+08:00 Paul Guo <pa...@gmail.com>:
>> > >>
>> > >> > 0. Yes, RAT check failures need to be handled. I do not know much
>> > about
>> > >> RAT
>> > >> >     but if we could just check affect files of one patch I'd 100%
>> > agree
>> > >> it
>> > >> > is in CI.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > 1. Those "git-cloned" repo are "git-cloned" only when necessary
>> (i.e.
>> > >> when
>> > >> >     related options are specified in configure command.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > 2. The thrift info has been in the ImportLogs file. I'd suggest move
>> > >> this
>> > >> > (probably
>> > >> >      with more details) into the README file.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > 2016-07-12 0:33 GMT+08:00 Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io>
>> > wrote:
>> > >> >> > Hi Goden,
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > I have pushed commits of 'HAWQ-892
>> > >> >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892>' and 'HAWQ-901
>> > >> >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-901>' into branch
>> > >> >> > '2.0.0.0-incubating'.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Ok, with these two additional commits I presumed the branch was
>> ready
>> > >> >> for review. I'm not done with the full review yet, but here are the
>> > top
>> > >> >> concerns
>> > >> >> that would make me -1 this branch if it did go for a vote:
>> > >> >>    0. mvn verify produces tons of RAT check failures that need to
>> be
>> > >> >> carefully
>> > >> >>    analyzed. As an aside -- I highly recommend having a CI job that
>> > >> >> runs mvn verify
>> > >> >>    on a regular basis.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>    1. Pulling source from external repositories in an unconditional
>> > >> way.
>> > >> >>     There's quite a bit of 'git clone' going on in the build
>> system.
>> > >> >> The easiest way
>> > >> >>     to see it all is to run
>> > >> >>        $ git grep -R 'git ' . | grep clone
>> > >> >>     My first concern is that all of these calls need to be made
>> > >> >> conditional. IOW,
>> > >> >>     I should be able to build a basic HAWQ binary without it doing
>> > >> >> 'git clone' and
>> > >> >>     instead relying on pointers to the same binary dependencies
>> > >> provided
>> > >> >> via
>> > >> >>     build configuration. This could be a documentation issue and if
>> > so
>> > >> >> I'd appreciate
>> > >> >>     having it published on the wiki some place.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>     On top of that, we have two bigger issues with the following
>> > repos:
>> > >> >>         https://github.com/jconway/plr.git  -- GPL
>> > >> >>         https://github.com/postgres/postgres.git -- Cryptography
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>     We need to make sure that HAWQ can be built with those
>> > altogether.'
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>     2. As a minor nit, I see that you imported thrift source under
>> > >> >> depends/thirdparty/thrift
>> > >> >>     and it would be great if there were a way to:
>> > >> >>         2.1. make sure that it is obvious what *release* version of
>> > >> >> thrift it was
>> > >> >>         2.2. make sure that it is obvious if anything in there gets
>> > >> >> patched
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Thanks,
>> > >> >> Roman.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >
>> >
>>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by "Ting(Goden) Yao" <ty...@pivotal.io>.

found a new one:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-622  might need to be resolved
before this release.

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 7:04 AM Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> Seems now all the blockers are fixed. Waiting merge into the branch.
>
> I will merge HAWQ-926 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-926>
> into
> the release branch after RAT changes are in to avoid conflict.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Radar
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:27 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > Per the discussion: we now still have 2 issues:
> >
> >    - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-915 (RAT check issues),
> >    this is being worked on
> >    - make pycrypto dependency optional : there's contradictory JIRAs
> >    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-863 (add pycrypto module
> >    back) - fixed
> >    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-271 (remove python
> modules)
> > -
> >    fixed
> >    Please whoever knows the details, file a new JIRA , so we start with a
> >    clean slate for this release.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Goden
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 4:22 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > > HAWQ-919 has been resolved and ported to 2.0.0.0-incubating branch.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:45 AM Paul Guo <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I've sent a pull request to resolve the rat issue,
> > >>
> > >>            https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/pull/788
> > >>
> > >> There are still several pxf related files which have license issues.
> > >>
> > >> We filed another JIRA to let the pxf guys fix this.
> > >>
> > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-919>
> > >>
> > >>       https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-919
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2016-07-12 11:00 GMT+08:00 Paul Guo <pa...@gmail.com>:
> > >>
> > >> > 0. Yes, RAT check failures need to be handled. I do not know much
> > about
> > >> RAT
> > >> >     but if we could just check affect files of one patch I'd 100%
> > agree
> > >> it
> > >> > is in CI.
> > >> >
> > >> > 1. Those "git-cloned" repo are "git-cloned" only when necessary
> (i.e.
> > >> when
> > >> >     related options are specified in configure command.
> > >> >
> > >> > 2. The thrift info has been in the ImportLogs file. I'd suggest move
> > >> this
> > >> > (probably
> > >> >      with more details) into the README file.
> > >> >
> > >> > 2016-07-12 0:33 GMT+08:00 Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>:
> > >> >
> > >> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> > >> >> > Hi Goden,
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I have pushed commits of 'HAWQ-892
> > >> >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892>' and 'HAWQ-901
> > >> >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-901>' into branch
> > >> >> > '2.0.0.0-incubating'.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Ok, with these two additional commits I presumed the branch was
> ready
> > >> >> for review. I'm not done with the full review yet, but here are the
> > top
> > >> >> concerns
> > >> >> that would make me -1 this branch if it did go for a vote:
> > >> >>    0. mvn verify produces tons of RAT check failures that need to
> be
> > >> >> carefully
> > >> >>    analyzed. As an aside -- I highly recommend having a CI job that
> > >> >> runs mvn verify
> > >> >>    on a regular basis.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>    1. Pulling source from external repositories in an unconditional
> > >> way.
> > >> >>     There's quite a bit of 'git clone' going on in the build
> system.
> > >> >> The easiest way
> > >> >>     to see it all is to run
> > >> >>        $ git grep -R 'git ' . | grep clone
> > >> >>     My first concern is that all of these calls need to be made
> > >> >> conditional. IOW,
> > >> >>     I should be able to build a basic HAWQ binary without it doing
> > >> >> 'git clone' and
> > >> >>     instead relying on pointers to the same binary dependencies
> > >> provided
> > >> >> via
> > >> >>     build configuration. This could be a documentation issue and if
> > so
> > >> >> I'd appreciate
> > >> >>     having it published on the wiki some place.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>     On top of that, we have two bigger issues with the following
> > repos:
> > >> >>         https://github.com/jconway/plr.git  -- GPL
> > >> >>         https://github.com/postgres/postgres.git -- Cryptography
> > >> >>
> > >> >>     We need to make sure that HAWQ can be built with those
> > altogether.'
> > >> >>
> > >> >>     2. As a minor nit, I see that you imported thrift source under
> > >> >> depends/thirdparty/thrift
> > >> >>     and it would be great if there were a way to:
> > >> >>         2.1. make sure that it is obvious what *release* version of
> > >> >> thrift it was
> > >> >>         2.2. make sure that it is obvious if anything in there gets
> > >> >> patched
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Thanks,
> > >> >> Roman.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io>.

Seems now all the blockers are fixed. Waiting merge into the branch.

I will merge HAWQ-926 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-926> into
the release branch after RAT changes are in to avoid conflict.

Thanks.

Regards,
Radar

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:27 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> Per the discussion: we now still have 2 issues:
>
>    - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-915 (RAT check issues),
>    this is being worked on
>    - make pycrypto dependency optional : there's contradictory JIRAs
>    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-863 (add pycrypto module
>    back) - fixed
>    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-271 (remove python modules)
> -
>    fixed
>    Please whoever knows the details, file a new JIRA , so we start with a
>    clean slate for this release.
>
>
> Thanks
> -Goden
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 4:22 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > HAWQ-919 has been resolved and ported to 2.0.0.0-incubating branch.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:45 AM Paul Guo <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I've sent a pull request to resolve the rat issue,
> >>
> >>            https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/pull/788
> >>
> >> There are still several pxf related files which have license issues.
> >>
> >> We filed another JIRA to let the pxf guys fix this.
> >>
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-919>
> >>
> >>       https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-919
> >>
> >>
> >> 2016-07-12 11:00 GMT+08:00 Paul Guo <pa...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> > 0. Yes, RAT check failures need to be handled. I do not know much
> about
> >> RAT
> >> >     but if we could just check affect files of one patch I'd 100%
> agree
> >> it
> >> > is in CI.
> >> >
> >> > 1. Those "git-cloned" repo are "git-cloned" only when necessary (i.e.
> >> when
> >> >     related options are specified in configure command.
> >> >
> >> > 2. The thrift info has been in the ImportLogs file. I'd suggest move
> >> this
> >> > (probably
> >> >      with more details) into the README file.
> >> >
> >> > 2016-07-12 0:33 GMT+08:00 Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >> >> > Hi Goden,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I have pushed commits of 'HAWQ-892
> >> >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892>' and 'HAWQ-901
> >> >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-901>' into branch
> >> >> > '2.0.0.0-incubating'.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ok, with these two additional commits I presumed the branch was ready
> >> >> for review. I'm not done with the full review yet, but here are the
> top
> >> >> concerns
> >> >> that would make me -1 this branch if it did go for a vote:
> >> >>    0. mvn verify produces tons of RAT check failures that need to be
> >> >> carefully
> >> >>    analyzed. As an aside -- I highly recommend having a CI job that
> >> >> runs mvn verify
> >> >>    on a regular basis.
> >> >>
> >> >>    1. Pulling source from external repositories in an unconditional
> >> way.
> >> >>     There's quite a bit of 'git clone' going on in the build system.
> >> >> The easiest way
> >> >>     to see it all is to run
> >> >>        $ git grep -R 'git ' . | grep clone
> >> >>     My first concern is that all of these calls need to be made
> >> >> conditional. IOW,
> >> >>     I should be able to build a basic HAWQ binary without it doing
> >> >> 'git clone' and
> >> >>     instead relying on pointers to the same binary dependencies
> >> provided
> >> >> via
> >> >>     build configuration. This could be a documentation issue and if
> so
> >> >> I'd appreciate
> >> >>     having it published on the wiki some place.
> >> >>
> >> >>     On top of that, we have two bigger issues with the following
> repos:
> >> >>         https://github.com/jconway/plr.git  -- GPL
> >> >>         https://github.com/postgres/postgres.git -- Cryptography
> >> >>
> >> >>     We need to make sure that HAWQ can be built with those
> altogether.'
> >> >>
> >> >>     2. As a minor nit, I see that you imported thrift source under
> >> >> depends/thirdparty/thrift
> >> >>     and it would be great if there were a way to:
> >> >>         2.1. make sure that it is obvious what *release* version of
> >> >> thrift it was
> >> >>         2.2. make sure that it is obvious if anything in there gets
> >> >> patched
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> Roman.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by "Ting(Goden) Yao" <ty...@pivotal.io>.

Per the discussion: we now still have 2 issues:

   - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-915 (RAT check issues),
   this is being worked on
   - make pycrypto dependency optional : there's contradictory JIRAs
   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-863 (add pycrypto module
   back) - fixed
   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-271 (remove python modules) -
   fixed
   Please whoever knows the details, file a new JIRA , so we start with a
   clean slate for this release.


Thanks
-Goden

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 4:22 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> HAWQ-919 has been resolved and ported to 2.0.0.0-incubating branch.
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:45 AM Paul Guo <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've sent a pull request to resolve the rat issue,
>>
>>            https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/pull/788
>>
>> There are still several pxf related files which have license issues.
>>
>> We filed another JIRA to let the pxf guys fix this.
>>
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-919>
>>
>>       https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-919
>>
>>
>> 2016-07-12 11:00 GMT+08:00 Paul Guo <pa...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > 0. Yes, RAT check failures need to be handled. I do not know much about
>> RAT
>> >     but if we could just check affect files of one patch I'd 100% agree
>> it
>> > is in CI.
>> >
>> > 1. Those "git-cloned" repo are "git-cloned" only when necessary (i.e.
>> when
>> >     related options are specified in configure command.
>> >
>> > 2. The thrift info has been in the ImportLogs file. I'd suggest move
>> this
>> > (probably
>> >      with more details) into the README file.
>> >
>> > 2016-07-12 0:33 GMT+08:00 Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> >> > Hi Goden,
>> >> >
>> >> > I have pushed commits of 'HAWQ-892
>> >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892>' and 'HAWQ-901
>> >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-901>' into branch
>> >> > '2.0.0.0-incubating'.
>> >>
>> >> Ok, with these two additional commits I presumed the branch was ready
>> >> for review. I'm not done with the full review yet, but here are the top
>> >> concerns
>> >> that would make me -1 this branch if it did go for a vote:
>> >>    0. mvn verify produces tons of RAT check failures that need to be
>> >> carefully
>> >>    analyzed. As an aside -- I highly recommend having a CI job that
>> >> runs mvn verify
>> >>    on a regular basis.
>> >>
>> >>    1. Pulling source from external repositories in an unconditional
>> way.
>> >>     There's quite a bit of 'git clone' going on in the build system.
>> >> The easiest way
>> >>     to see it all is to run
>> >>        $ git grep -R 'git ' . | grep clone
>> >>     My first concern is that all of these calls need to be made
>> >> conditional. IOW,
>> >>     I should be able to build a basic HAWQ binary without it doing
>> >> 'git clone' and
>> >>     instead relying on pointers to the same binary dependencies
>> provided
>> >> via
>> >>     build configuration. This could be a documentation issue and if so
>> >> I'd appreciate
>> >>     having it published on the wiki some place.
>> >>
>> >>     On top of that, we have two bigger issues with the following repos:
>> >>         https://github.com/jconway/plr.git  -- GPL
>> >>         https://github.com/postgres/postgres.git -- Cryptography
>> >>
>> >>     We need to make sure that HAWQ can be built with those altogether.'
>> >>
>> >>     2. As a minor nit, I see that you imported thrift source under
>> >> depends/thirdparty/thrift
>> >>     and it would be great if there were a way to:
>> >>         2.1. make sure that it is obvious what *release* version of
>> >> thrift it was
>> >>         2.2. make sure that it is obvious if anything in there gets
>> >> patched
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Roman.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by "Ting(Goden) Yao" <ty...@pivotal.io>.

HAWQ-919 has been resolved and ported to 2.0.0.0-incubating branch.

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:45 AM Paul Guo <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've sent a pull request to resolve the rat issue,
>
>            https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/pull/788
>
> There are still several pxf related files which have license issues.
>
> We filed another JIRA to let the pxf guys fix this.
>
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-919>
>
>       https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-919
>
>
> 2016-07-12 11:00 GMT+08:00 Paul Guo <pa...@gmail.com>:
>
> > 0. Yes, RAT check failures need to be handled. I do not know much about
> RAT
> >     but if we could just check affect files of one patch I'd 100% agree
> it
> > is in CI.
> >
> > 1. Those "git-cloned" repo are "git-cloned" only when necessary (i.e.
> when
> >     related options are specified in configure command.
> >
> > 2. The thrift info has been in the ImportLogs file. I'd suggest move this
> > (probably
> >      with more details) into the README file.
> >
> > 2016-07-12 0:33 GMT+08:00 Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >> > Hi Goden,
> >> >
> >> > I have pushed commits of 'HAWQ-892
> >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892>' and 'HAWQ-901
> >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-901>' into branch
> >> > '2.0.0.0-incubating'.
> >>
> >> Ok, with these two additional commits I presumed the branch was ready
> >> for review. I'm not done with the full review yet, but here are the top
> >> concerns
> >> that would make me -1 this branch if it did go for a vote:
> >>    0. mvn verify produces tons of RAT check failures that need to be
> >> carefully
> >>    analyzed. As an aside -- I highly recommend having a CI job that
> >> runs mvn verify
> >>    on a regular basis.
> >>
> >>    1. Pulling source from external repositories in an unconditional way.
> >>     There's quite a bit of 'git clone' going on in the build system.
> >> The easiest way
> >>     to see it all is to run
> >>        $ git grep -R 'git ' . | grep clone
> >>     My first concern is that all of these calls need to be made
> >> conditional. IOW,
> >>     I should be able to build a basic HAWQ binary without it doing
> >> 'git clone' and
> >>     instead relying on pointers to the same binary dependencies provided
> >> via
> >>     build configuration. This could be a documentation issue and if so
> >> I'd appreciate
> >>     having it published on the wiki some place.
> >>
> >>     On top of that, we have two bigger issues with the following repos:
> >>         https://github.com/jconway/plr.git  -- GPL
> >>         https://github.com/postgres/postgres.git -- Cryptography
> >>
> >>     We need to make sure that HAWQ can be built with those altogether.'
> >>
> >>     2. As a minor nit, I see that you imported thrift source under
> >> depends/thirdparty/thrift
> >>     and it would be great if there were a way to:
> >>         2.1. make sure that it is obvious what *release* version of
> >> thrift it was
> >>         2.2. make sure that it is obvious if anything in there gets
> >> patched
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Roman.
> >>
> >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by Paul Guo <pa...@gmail.com>.

I've sent a pull request to resolve the rat issue,

           https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/pull/788

There are still several pxf related files which have license issues.

We filed another JIRA to let the pxf guys fix this.

<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-919>

      https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-919


2016-07-12 11:00 GMT+08:00 Paul Guo <pa...@gmail.com>:

> 0. Yes, RAT check failures need to be handled. I do not know much about RAT
>     but if we could just check affect files of one patch I'd 100% agree it
> is in CI.
>
> 1. Those "git-cloned" repo are "git-cloned" only when necessary (i.e. when
>     related options are specified in configure command.
>
> 2. The thrift info has been in the ImportLogs file. I'd suggest move this
> (probably
>      with more details) into the README file.
>
> 2016-07-12 0:33 GMT+08:00 Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> > Hi Goden,
>> >
>> > I have pushed commits of 'HAWQ-892
>> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892>' and 'HAWQ-901
>> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-901>' into branch
>> > '2.0.0.0-incubating'.
>>
>> Ok, with these two additional commits I presumed the branch was ready
>> for review. I'm not done with the full review yet, but here are the top
>> concerns
>> that would make me -1 this branch if it did go for a vote:
>>    0. mvn verify produces tons of RAT check failures that need to be
>> carefully
>>    analyzed. As an aside -- I highly recommend having a CI job that
>> runs mvn verify
>>    on a regular basis.
>>
>>    1. Pulling source from external repositories in an unconditional way.
>>     There's quite a bit of 'git clone' going on in the build system.
>> The easiest way
>>     to see it all is to run
>>        $ git grep -R 'git ' . | grep clone
>>     My first concern is that all of these calls need to be made
>> conditional. IOW,
>>     I should be able to build a basic HAWQ binary without it doing
>> 'git clone' and
>>     instead relying on pointers to the same binary dependencies provided
>> via
>>     build configuration. This could be a documentation issue and if so
>> I'd appreciate
>>     having it published on the wiki some place.
>>
>>     On top of that, we have two bigger issues with the following repos:
>>         https://github.com/jconway/plr.git  -- GPL
>>         https://github.com/postgres/postgres.git -- Cryptography
>>
>>     We need to make sure that HAWQ can be built with those altogether.'
>>
>>     2. As a minor nit, I see that you imported thrift source under
>> depends/thirdparty/thrift
>>     and it would be great if there were a way to:
>>         2.1. make sure that it is obvious what *release* version of
>> thrift it was
>>         2.2. make sure that it is obvious if anything in there gets
>> patched
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by Paul Guo <pa...@gmail.com>.

0. Yes, RAT check failures need to be handled. I do not know much about RAT
    but if we could just check affect files of one patch I'd 100% agree it
is in CI.

1. Those "git-cloned" repo are "git-cloned" only when necessary (i.e. when
    related options are specified in configure command.

2. The thrift info has been in the ImportLogs file. I'd suggest move this
(probably
     with more details) into the README file.

2016-07-12 0:33 GMT+08:00 Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>:

> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > Hi Goden,
> >
> > I have pushed commits of 'HAWQ-892
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892>' and 'HAWQ-901
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-901>' into branch
> > '2.0.0.0-incubating'.
>
> Ok, with these two additional commits I presumed the branch was ready
> for review. I'm not done with the full review yet, but here are the top
> concerns
> that would make me -1 this branch if it did go for a vote:
>    0. mvn verify produces tons of RAT check failures that need to be
> carefully
>    analyzed. As an aside -- I highly recommend having a CI job that
> runs mvn verify
>    on a regular basis.
>
>    1. Pulling source from external repositories in an unconditional way.
>     There's quite a bit of 'git clone' going on in the build system.
> The easiest way
>     to see it all is to run
>        $ git grep -R 'git ' . | grep clone
>     My first concern is that all of these calls need to be made
> conditional. IOW,
>     I should be able to build a basic HAWQ binary without it doing
> 'git clone' and
>     instead relying on pointers to the same binary dependencies provided
> via
>     build configuration. This could be a documentation issue and if so
> I'd appreciate
>     having it published on the wiki some place.
>
>     On top of that, we have two bigger issues with the following repos:
>         https://github.com/jconway/plr.git  -- GPL
>         https://github.com/postgres/postgres.git -- Cryptography
>
>     We need to make sure that HAWQ can be built with those altogether.'
>
>     2. As a minor nit, I see that you imported thrift source under
> depends/thirdparty/thrift
>     and it would be great if there were a way to:
>         2.1. make sure that it is obvious what *release* version of
> thrift it was
>         2.2. make sure that it is obvious if anything in there gets patched
>
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Hi Goden,
>
> I have pushed commits of 'HAWQ-892
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892>' and 'HAWQ-901
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-901>' into branch
> '2.0.0.0-incubating'.

Ok, with these two additional commits I presumed the branch was ready
for review. I'm not done with the full review yet, but here are the top concerns
that would make me -1 this branch if it did go for a vote:
   0. mvn verify produces tons of RAT check failures that need to be carefully
   analyzed. As an aside -- I highly recommend having a CI job that
runs mvn verify
   on a regular basis.

   1. Pulling source from external repositories in an unconditional way.
    There's quite a bit of 'git clone' going on in the build system.
The easiest way
    to see it all is to run
       $ git grep -R 'git ' . | grep clone
    My first concern is that all of these calls need to be made
conditional. IOW,
    I should be able to build a basic HAWQ binary without it doing
'git clone' and
    instead relying on pointers to the same binary dependencies provided via
    build configuration. This could be a documentation issue and if so
I'd appreciate
    having it published on the wiki some place.

    On top of that, we have two bigger issues with the following repos:
        https://github.com/jconway/plr.git  -- GPL
        https://github.com/postgres/postgres.git -- Cryptography

    We need to make sure that HAWQ can be built with those altogether.'

    2. As a minor nit, I see that you imported thrift source under
depends/thirdparty/thrift
    and it would be great if there were a way to:
        2.1. make sure that it is obvious what *release* version of
thrift it was
        2.2. make sure that it is obvious if anything in there gets patched


Thanks,
Roman.

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io>.

Hi Goden,

I have pushed commits of 'HAWQ-892
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892>' and 'HAWQ-901
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-901>' into branch
'2.0.0.0-incubating'.

Thanks.

Regards,
Radar

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> Thanks Goden.
>
> Later we should have HAWQ-892 commit in this new branch. And I think at
> least HAWQ-901 should be merged in once it's get committed to master.
>
> Regards,
> Radar
>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 1:32 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
>> As I didn't see any response on the thread, I have done creating a new
>> branch "*2.0.0.0-incubating*" based on the latest commit on master :
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hawq.git;a=commit;h=3b54677d9d06d49e40e161daedfe7efa2229fc07
>>
>>
>> I also have deleted the old "2.0.0-incubating" branch.
>> Please start working on our 1st release in this new branch.
>> Thanks
>> -Goden
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 3:19 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>
>> > To echo with Roman's ask - I assume we plan to cut 2.0.0.0-incubating
>> > branch based on the current head of Master:
>> >
>> > The last known commit when we were discussing on this thread was: by
>> rlei
>> >
>> >
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hawq.git;a=commit;h=0f61e8597586d9e4f3902b14dc0ad2debae606a7
>> >
>> >
>> > today (July 7), shivram had another commit to fix a unit test issue:
>> >
>> >
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hawq.git;a=commit;h=e150dc4e346bf471687e32c32f37c66896d302ec
>> >
>> >
>> > so if we want to cut the branch please do it fast as master is always
>> > moving with latest commits.
>> >
>> > If I don't see any updates on the thread of creating the release branch
>> by
>> > July 8th morning 10am (PST), as release manager, I'll go ahead to create
>> > the branch based on the latest commit then.
>> >
>> > Let me know if there's any concerns for that.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > -Goden
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:25 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thanks Goden!
>> >>
>> >> To close the loop on the other thread that has to do with dependencies
>> >> management,
>> >> I'd like to ask that whoever cuts the branch notifies the list
>> >> immediately so I don't
>> >> have to wait for the tarball to be put up for vote in order to provide
>> >> feedback on
>> >> the build.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Roman.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>> >> > I'm fine with this one-time approach. Please moving forward creating
>> a
>> >> new
>> >> > branch and deal with the version issue , then I'll check and respin
>> the
>> >> > voting process.
>> >> > I've also updated JIRA release version for this one to
>> >> "*2.0.0.0-incubating*"
>> >> > to be consistent as well as wiki page.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:47 AM Lei Chang <le...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Since this is blocking the release and this release is only for IP
>> >> cleanup,
>> >> >> and considering the version number change and merge or a new branch
>> is
>> >> just
>> >> >> a minor issue, I think the easiest way is to create a new branch
>> >> >> "2.0.0.0-incubating" and unblock the release.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And for future releases, merge makes more sense.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Cheers
>> >> >> Lei
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Another benefit to recreate the branch is if we finally decide to
>> use
>> >> >> > 4-digits version. We should create the branch name as
>> >> >> '2.0.0.0-incubating'.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Regards,
>> >> >> > Radar
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Vineet Goel <vv...@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > Radar,
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > I understand that we have a clean slate right now in terms of
>> >> releases,
>> >> >> > so
>> >> >> > > it's not a huge issue re-creating the branch. However, going
>> >> forward,
>> >> >> we
>> >> >> > > should follow the process to be able to do proper release
>> >> management
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> > > change control.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > So, should we make an exception for this one time in the spirit
>> of
>> >> >> > getting
>> >> >> > > our first release out asap?
>> >> >> > > I think Goden, as the release manager should make that call.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Thanks
>> >> >> > > -Vineet
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > > Hi Vineet,
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > Merge or re-create the branch is almost the same for our
>> current
>> >> >> > status.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > Re-create the branch can make all our good changes in, and
>> it's
>> >> more
>> >> >> > > clear,
>> >> >> > > > users can easy find out where it cut out, just following one
>> >> version
>> >> >> > > change
>> >> >> > > > commit.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > Anyway, I'm fine with each way. Thanks.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > Regards,
>> >> >> > > > Radar
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Vineet Goel <
>> vvineet@apache.org>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > > Radar,
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > The whole point of cutting a branch was to stabilize it for
>> the
>> >> >> first
>> >> >> > > > > release. Why would we discard it and start a new one from
>> >> master?
>> >> >> Any
>> >> >> > > > > changes since the 2.0.0-incubating branch needs to go in the
>> >> next
>> >> >> > > release
>> >> >> > > > > scope (unless selective back-porting is necessary to meet
>> the
>> >> first
>> >> >> > > > release
>> >> >> > > > > scope).
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > Thanks
>> >> >> > > > > -Vineet
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Radar Da lei <
>> rlei@pivotal.io>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > Since we have a lot of commits for this release after
>> >> creating
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> > > > > branch.
>> >> >> > > > > > I will re-create the branch. So the first blocking issue
>> is
>> >> gone.
>> >> >> > > > Nothing
>> >> >> > > > > > need to be merged.
>> >> >> > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > Any concerns, please let me know. Thanks.
>> >> >> > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > Regards,
>> >> >> > > > > > Radar
>> >> >> > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <
>> >> tyao@pivotal.io
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > > wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > So we have 2 blocking issues:
>> >> >> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-867  (need
>> to
>> >> port
>> >> >> > this
>> >> >> > > > to
>> >> >> > > > > > > incubating branch)
>> >> >> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892
>> (version
>> >> >> naming
>> >> >> > > > issue)
>> >> >> > > > > > > Anyone can help to resolve them, please reply ASAP.
>> >> >> > > > > > > -Goden
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:59 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <
>> >> >> tyao@pivotal.io>
>> >> >> > > > > wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > > We found an issue during discussion:
>> >> >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892
>> >> >> > > > > > > > We need to contain "incubating" in the version and
>> hawq
>> >> >> > --version
>> >> >> > > > > > > command.
>> >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > > Thanks
>> >> >> > > > > > > > -Goden
>> >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:24 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <
>> >> >> > tyao@pivotal.io
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > >> @Roman - for this JIRA, per Lei's suggestion, it's
>> not
>> >> >> > blocking
>> >> >> > > > this
>> >> >> > > > > > > >> release (as no IP issues) , so I'll update the
>> release
>> >> info
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> > > the
>> >> >> > > > > > JIRA.
>> >> >> > > > > > > >> HAWQ-783 <
>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-783>
>> >> >> > > Remove
>> >> >> > > > > > > quicklz
>> >> >> > > > > > > >> in medadata
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>
>> >> >> > > > > > > >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <
>> >> >> > > tyao@pivotal.io>
>> >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>> Thanks Guo, for your info. This JIRA was not marked
>> in
>> >> this
>> >> >> > > > > release.
>> >> >> > > > > > so
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>> next time, if you think this is required, please
>> mark
>> >> it
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> > > the
>> >> >> > > > > > > release
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>> and contact release manager ASAP.
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>> I'm checking this JIRA for details but I see it is
>> >> closed
>> >> >> > > > already.
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>>
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:20 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
>> >> >> > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org
>> >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>>
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Guo Gang <
>> >> >> paulguo@gmail.com
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > > > wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> > Goden, It seems that we need all of the features
>> >> could
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> > > > > compiled
>> >> >> > > > > > > in
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> > source tarball (i.e. non-git workspace) before
>> the
>> >> >> > release,
>> >> >> > > > but
>> >> >> > > > > > this
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> seems
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> > to be not the case in the tarball. See JIRA
>> HAWQ-867
>> >> >> > > (Replace
>> >> >> > > > > the
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> > git-submobule mechanism with git-clone). I think
>> we
>> >> >> need a
>> >> >> > > new
>> >> >> > > > > > > source
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> > version.
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> Guo, Goden, it would be great if you guys could
>> help
>> >> all
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> > us
>> >> >> > > > > > follow
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> this
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> release train by filing blocking JIRAs for the
>> >> >> > > 2.0.0-incubating
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> release. The
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> way it currently stands, we seem to only have 1
>> >> blocking
>> >> >> > JIRA:
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334000/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> Roman.
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> >> > > > > > > >>>
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io>.

Thanks Goden.

Later we should have HAWQ-892 commit in this new branch. And I think at
least HAWQ-901 should be merged in once it's get committed to master.

Regards,
Radar

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 1:32 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> As I didn't see any response on the thread, I have done creating a new
> branch "*2.0.0.0-incubating*" based on the latest commit on master :
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hawq.git;a=commit;h=3b54677d9d06d49e40e161daedfe7efa2229fc07
>
>
> I also have deleted the old "2.0.0-incubating" branch.
> Please start working on our 1st release in this new branch.
> Thanks
> -Goden
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 3:19 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > To echo with Roman's ask - I assume we plan to cut 2.0.0.0-incubating
> > branch based on the current head of Master:
> >
> > The last known commit when we were discussing on this thread was: by rlei
> >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hawq.git;a=commit;h=0f61e8597586d9e4f3902b14dc0ad2debae606a7
> >
> >
> > today (July 7), shivram had another commit to fix a unit test issue:
> >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hawq.git;a=commit;h=e150dc4e346bf471687e32c32f37c66896d302ec
> >
> >
> > so if we want to cut the branch please do it fast as master is always
> > moving with latest commits.
> >
> > If I don't see any updates on the thread of creating the release branch
> by
> > July 8th morning 10am (PST), as release manager, I'll go ahead to create
> > the branch based on the latest commit then.
> >
> > Let me know if there's any concerns for that.
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Goden
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:25 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks Goden!
> >>
> >> To close the loop on the other thread that has to do with dependencies
> >> management,
> >> I'd like to ask that whoever cuts the branch notifies the list
> >> immediately so I don't
> >> have to wait for the tarball to be put up for vote in order to provide
> >> feedback on
> >> the build.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Roman.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >> > I'm fine with this one-time approach. Please moving forward creating a
> >> new
> >> > branch and deal with the version issue , then I'll check and respin
> the
> >> > voting process.
> >> > I've also updated JIRA release version for this one to
> >> "*2.0.0.0-incubating*"
> >> > to be consistent as well as wiki page.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:47 AM Lei Chang <le...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Since this is blocking the release and this release is only for IP
> >> cleanup,
> >> >> and considering the version number change and merge or a new branch
> is
> >> just
> >> >> a minor issue, I think the easiest way is to create a new branch
> >> >> "2.0.0.0-incubating" and unblock the release.
> >> >>
> >> >> And for future releases, merge makes more sense.
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers
> >> >> Lei
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Another benefit to recreate the branch is if we finally decide to
> use
> >> >> > 4-digits version. We should create the branch name as
> >> >> '2.0.0.0-incubating'.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Regards,
> >> >> > Radar
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Vineet Goel <vv...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Radar,
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I understand that we have a clean slate right now in terms of
> >> releases,
> >> >> > so
> >> >> > > it's not a huge issue re-creating the branch. However, going
> >> forward,
> >> >> we
> >> >> > > should follow the process to be able to do proper release
> >> management
> >> >> and
> >> >> > > change control.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > So, should we make an exception for this one time in the spirit
> of
> >> >> > getting
> >> >> > > our first release out asap?
> >> >> > > I think Goden, as the release manager should make that call.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Thanks
> >> >> > > -Vineet
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > Hi Vineet,
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Merge or re-create the branch is almost the same for our
> current
> >> >> > status.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Re-create the branch can make all our good changes in, and it's
> >> more
> >> >> > > clear,
> >> >> > > > users can easy find out where it cut out, just following one
> >> version
> >> >> > > change
> >> >> > > > commit.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Anyway, I'm fine with each way. Thanks.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Regards,
> >> >> > > > Radar
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Vineet Goel <
> vvineet@apache.org>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > > Radar,
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > The whole point of cutting a branch was to stabilize it for
> the
> >> >> first
> >> >> > > > > release. Why would we discard it and start a new one from
> >> master?
> >> >> Any
> >> >> > > > > changes since the 2.0.0-incubating branch needs to go in the
> >> next
> >> >> > > release
> >> >> > > > > scope (unless selective back-porting is necessary to meet the
> >> first
> >> >> > > > release
> >> >> > > > > scope).
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > Thanks
> >> >> > > > > -Vineet
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Radar Da lei <
> rlei@pivotal.io>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > Since we have a lot of commits for this release after
> >> creating
> >> >> the
> >> >> > > > > branch.
> >> >> > > > > > I will re-create the branch. So the first blocking issue is
> >> gone.
> >> >> > > > Nothing
> >> >> > > > > > need to be merged.
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > Any concerns, please let me know. Thanks.
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > Regards,
> >> >> > > > > > Radar
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <
> >> tyao@pivotal.io
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > So we have 2 blocking issues:
> >> >> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-867  (need to
> >> port
> >> >> > this
> >> >> > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > incubating branch)
> >> >> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892  (version
> >> >> naming
> >> >> > > > issue)
> >> >> > > > > > > Anyone can help to resolve them, please reply ASAP.
> >> >> > > > > > > -Goden
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:59 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <
> >> >> tyao@pivotal.io>
> >> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > We found an issue during discussion:
> >> >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892
> >> >> > > > > > > > We need to contain "incubating" in the version and hawq
> >> >> > --version
> >> >> > > > > > > command.
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > Thanks
> >> >> > > > > > > > -Goden
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:24 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <
> >> >> > tyao@pivotal.io
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > >> @Roman - for this JIRA, per Lei's suggestion, it's not
> >> >> > blocking
> >> >> > > > this
> >> >> > > > > > > >> release (as no IP issues) , so I'll update the release
> >> info
> >> >> in
> >> >> > > the
> >> >> > > > > > JIRA.
> >> >> > > > > > > >> HAWQ-783 <
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-783>
> >> >> > > Remove
> >> >> > > > > > > quicklz
> >> >> > > > > > > >> in medadata
> >> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <
> >> >> > > tyao@pivotal.io>
> >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > >>> Thanks Guo, for your info. This JIRA was not marked
> in
> >> this
> >> >> > > > > release.
> >> >> > > > > > so
> >> >> > > > > > > >>> next time, if you think this is required, please mark
> >> it
> >> >> for
> >> >> > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > release
> >> >> > > > > > > >>> and contact release manager ASAP.
> >> >> > > > > > > >>> I'm checking this JIRA for details but I see it is
> >> closed
> >> >> > > > already.
> >> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:20 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> >> >> > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Guo Gang <
> >> >> paulguo@gmail.com
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> > Goden, It seems that we need all of the features
> >> could
> >> >> be
> >> >> > > > > compiled
> >> >> > > > > > > in
> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> > source tarball (i.e. non-git workspace) before the
> >> >> > release,
> >> >> > > > but
> >> >> > > > > > this
> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> seems
> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> > to be not the case in the tarball. See JIRA
> HAWQ-867
> >> >> > > (Replace
> >> >> > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> > git-submobule mechanism with git-clone). I think
> we
> >> >> need a
> >> >> > > new
> >> >> > > > > > > source
> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> > version.
> >> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> Guo, Goden, it would be great if you guys could help
> >> all
> >> >> of
> >> >> > us
> >> >> > > > > > follow
> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> this
> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> release train by filing blocking JIRAs for the
> >> >> > > 2.0.0-incubating
> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> release. The
> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> way it currently stands, we seem to only have 1
> >> blocking
> >> >> > JIRA:
> >> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334000/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
> >> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> >> >> > > > > > > >>>> Roman.
> >> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by "Ting(Goden) Yao" <ty...@pivotal.io>.

As I didn't see any response on the thread, I have done creating a new
branch "*2.0.0.0-incubating*" based on the latest commit on master :
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hawq.git;a=commit;h=3b54677d9d06d49e40e161daedfe7efa2229fc07


I also have deleted the old "2.0.0-incubating" branch.
Please start working on our 1st release in this new branch.
Thanks
-Goden

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 3:19 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> To echo with Roman's ask - I assume we plan to cut 2.0.0.0-incubating
> branch based on the current head of Master:
>
> The last known commit when we were discussing on this thread was: by rlei
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hawq.git;a=commit;h=0f61e8597586d9e4f3902b14dc0ad2debae606a7
>
>
> today (July 7), shivram had another commit to fix a unit test issue:
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hawq.git;a=commit;h=e150dc4e346bf471687e32c32f37c66896d302ec
>
>
> so if we want to cut the branch please do it fast as master is always
> moving with latest commits.
>
> If I don't see any updates on the thread of creating the release branch by
> July 8th morning 10am (PST), as release manager, I'll go ahead to create
> the branch based on the latest commit then.
>
> Let me know if there's any concerns for that.
>
> Thanks
> -Goden
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:25 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Goden!
>>
>> To close the loop on the other thread that has to do with dependencies
>> management,
>> I'd like to ask that whoever cuts the branch notifies the list
>> immediately so I don't
>> have to wait for the tarball to be put up for vote in order to provide
>> feedback on
>> the build.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> > I'm fine with this one-time approach. Please moving forward creating a
>> new
>> > branch and deal with the version issue , then I'll check and respin the
>> > voting process.
>> > I've also updated JIRA release version for this one to
>> "*2.0.0.0-incubating*"
>> > to be consistent as well as wiki page.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:47 AM Lei Chang <le...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Since this is blocking the release and this release is only for IP
>> cleanup,
>> >> and considering the version number change and merge or a new branch is
>> just
>> >> a minor issue, I think the easiest way is to create a new branch
>> >> "2.0.0.0-incubating" and unblock the release.
>> >>
>> >> And for future releases, merge makes more sense.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >> Lei
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Another benefit to recreate the branch is if we finally decide to use
>> >> > 4-digits version. We should create the branch name as
>> >> '2.0.0.0-incubating'.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks.
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards,
>> >> > Radar
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Vineet Goel <vv...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Radar,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I understand that we have a clean slate right now in terms of
>> releases,
>> >> > so
>> >> > > it's not a huge issue re-creating the branch. However, going
>> forward,
>> >> we
>> >> > > should follow the process to be able to do proper release
>> management
>> >> and
>> >> > > change control.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > So, should we make an exception for this one time in the spirit of
>> >> > getting
>> >> > > our first release out asap?
>> >> > > I think Goden, as the release manager should make that call.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thanks
>> >> > > -Vineet
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Hi Vineet,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Merge or re-create the branch is almost the same for our current
>> >> > status.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Re-create the branch can make all our good changes in, and it's
>> more
>> >> > > clear,
>> >> > > > users can easy find out where it cut out, just following one
>> version
>> >> > > change
>> >> > > > commit.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Anyway, I'm fine with each way. Thanks.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Regards,
>> >> > > > Radar
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Vineet Goel <vv...@apache.org>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > Radar,
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > The whole point of cutting a branch was to stabilize it for the
>> >> first
>> >> > > > > release. Why would we discard it and start a new one from
>> master?
>> >> Any
>> >> > > > > changes since the 2.0.0-incubating branch needs to go in the
>> next
>> >> > > release
>> >> > > > > scope (unless selective back-porting is necessary to meet the
>> first
>> >> > > > release
>> >> > > > > scope).
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Thanks
>> >> > > > > -Vineet
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Since we have a lot of commits for this release after
>> creating
>> >> the
>> >> > > > > branch.
>> >> > > > > > I will re-create the branch. So the first blocking issue is
>> gone.
>> >> > > > Nothing
>> >> > > > > > need to be merged.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Any concerns, please let me know. Thanks.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Regards,
>> >> > > > > > Radar
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <
>> tyao@pivotal.io
>> >> >
>> >> > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > So we have 2 blocking issues:
>> >> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-867  (need to
>> port
>> >> > this
>> >> > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > incubating branch)
>> >> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892  (version
>> >> naming
>> >> > > > issue)
>> >> > > > > > > Anyone can help to resolve them, please reply ASAP.
>> >> > > > > > > -Goden
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:59 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <
>> >> tyao@pivotal.io>
>> >> > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > We found an issue during discussion:
>> >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892
>> >> > > > > > > > We need to contain "incubating" in the version and hawq
>> >> > --version
>> >> > > > > > > command.
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > Thanks
>> >> > > > > > > > -Goden
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:24 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <
>> >> > tyao@pivotal.io
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >> @Roman - for this JIRA, per Lei's suggestion, it's not
>> >> > blocking
>> >> > > > this
>> >> > > > > > > >> release (as no IP issues) , so I'll update the release
>> info
>> >> in
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > > > > JIRA.
>> >> > > > > > > >> HAWQ-783 <
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-783>
>> >> > > Remove
>> >> > > > > > > quicklz
>> >> > > > > > > >> in medadata
>> >> > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <
>> >> > > tyao@pivotal.io>
>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > >>> Thanks Guo, for your info. This JIRA was not marked in
>> this
>> >> > > > > release.
>> >> > > > > > so
>> >> > > > > > > >>> next time, if you think this is required, please mark
>> it
>> >> for
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > > > > > release
>> >> > > > > > > >>> and contact release manager ASAP.
>> >> > > > > > > >>> I'm checking this JIRA for details but I see it is
>> closed
>> >> > > > already.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:20 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
>> >> > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Guo Gang <
>> >> paulguo@gmail.com
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> > Goden, It seems that we need all of the features
>> could
>> >> be
>> >> > > > > compiled
>> >> > > > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> > source tarball (i.e. non-git workspace) before the
>> >> > release,
>> >> > > > but
>> >> > > > > > this
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> seems
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> > to be not the case in the tarball. See JIRA HAWQ-867
>> >> > > (Replace
>> >> > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> > git-submobule mechanism with git-clone). I think we
>> >> need a
>> >> > > new
>> >> > > > > > > source
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> > version.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> Guo, Goden, it would be great if you guys could help
>> all
>> >> of
>> >> > us
>> >> > > > > > follow
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> this
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> release train by filing blocking JIRAs for the
>> >> > > 2.0.0-incubating
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> release. The
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> way it currently stands, we seem to only have 1
>> blocking
>> >> > JIRA:
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334000/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> Roman.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by "Ting(Goden) Yao" <ty...@pivotal.io>.

To echo with Roman's ask - I assume we plan to cut 2.0.0.0-incubating
branch based on the current head of Master:

The last known commit when we were discussing on this thread was: by rlei
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hawq.git;a=commit;h=0f61e8597586d9e4f3902b14dc0ad2debae606a7


today (July 7), shivram had another commit to fix a unit test issue:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hawq.git;a=commit;h=e150dc4e346bf471687e32c32f37c66896d302ec


so if we want to cut the branch please do it fast as master is always
moving with latest commits.

If I don't see any updates on the thread of creating the release branch by
July 8th morning 10am (PST), as release manager, I'll go ahead to create
the branch based on the latest commit then.

Let me know if there's any concerns for that.

Thanks
-Goden

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:25 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:

> Thanks Goden!
>
> To close the loop on the other thread that has to do with dependencies
> management,
> I'd like to ask that whoever cuts the branch notifies the list
> immediately so I don't
> have to wait for the tarball to be put up for vote in order to provide
> feedback on
> the build.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > I'm fine with this one-time approach. Please moving forward creating a
> new
> > branch and deal with the version issue , then I'll check and respin the
> > voting process.
> > I've also updated JIRA release version for this one to
> "*2.0.0.0-incubating*"
> > to be consistent as well as wiki page.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:47 AM Lei Chang <le...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Since this is blocking the release and this release is only for IP
> cleanup,
> >> and considering the version number change and merge or a new branch is
> just
> >> a minor issue, I think the easiest way is to create a new branch
> >> "2.0.0.0-incubating" and unblock the release.
> >>
> >> And for future releases, merge makes more sense.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Lei
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Another benefit to recreate the branch is if we finally decide to use
> >> > 4-digits version. We should create the branch name as
> >> '2.0.0.0-incubating'.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Radar
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Vineet Goel <vv...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Radar,
> >> > >
> >> > > I understand that we have a clean slate right now in terms of
> releases,
> >> > so
> >> > > it's not a huge issue re-creating the branch. However, going
> forward,
> >> we
> >> > > should follow the process to be able to do proper release management
> >> and
> >> > > change control.
> >> > >
> >> > > So, should we make an exception for this one time in the spirit of
> >> > getting
> >> > > our first release out asap?
> >> > > I think Goden, as the release manager should make that call.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks
> >> > > -Vineet
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hi Vineet,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Merge or re-create the branch is almost the same for our current
> >> > status.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Re-create the branch can make all our good changes in, and it's
> more
> >> > > clear,
> >> > > > users can easy find out where it cut out, just following one
> version
> >> > > change
> >> > > > commit.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Anyway, I'm fine with each way. Thanks.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Regards,
> >> > > > Radar
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Vineet Goel <vv...@apache.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Radar,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > The whole point of cutting a branch was to stabilize it for the
> >> first
> >> > > > > release. Why would we discard it and start a new one from
> master?
> >> Any
> >> > > > > changes since the 2.0.0-incubating branch needs to go in the
> next
> >> > > release
> >> > > > > scope (unless selective back-porting is necessary to meet the
> first
> >> > > > release
> >> > > > > scope).
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Thanks
> >> > > > > -Vineet
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Since we have a lot of commits for this release after creating
> >> the
> >> > > > > branch.
> >> > > > > > I will re-create the branch. So the first blocking issue is
> gone.
> >> > > > Nothing
> >> > > > > > need to be merged.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Any concerns, please let me know. Thanks.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Regards,
> >> > > > > > Radar
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <
> tyao@pivotal.io
> >> >
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > So we have 2 blocking issues:
> >> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-867  (need to
> port
> >> > this
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > incubating branch)
> >> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892  (version
> >> naming
> >> > > > issue)
> >> > > > > > > Anyone can help to resolve them, please reply ASAP.
> >> > > > > > > -Goden
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:59 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <
> >> tyao@pivotal.io>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > We found an issue during discussion:
> >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892
> >> > > > > > > > We need to contain "incubating" in the version and hawq
> >> > --version
> >> > > > > > > command.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Thanks
> >> > > > > > > > -Goden
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:24 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <
> >> > tyao@pivotal.io
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >> @Roman - for this JIRA, per Lei's suggestion, it's not
> >> > blocking
> >> > > > this
> >> > > > > > > >> release (as no IP issues) , so I'll update the release
> info
> >> in
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > JIRA.
> >> > > > > > > >> HAWQ-783 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-783
> >
> >> > > Remove
> >> > > > > > > quicklz
> >> > > > > > > >> in medadata
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <
> >> > > tyao@pivotal.io>
> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >>> Thanks Guo, for your info. This JIRA was not marked in
> this
> >> > > > > release.
> >> > > > > > so
> >> > > > > > > >>> next time, if you think this is required, please mark it
> >> for
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > release
> >> > > > > > > >>> and contact release manager ASAP.
> >> > > > > > > >>> I'm checking this JIRA for details but I see it is
> closed
> >> > > > already.
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:20 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> >> > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Guo Gang <
> >> paulguo@gmail.com
> >> > >
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>> > Goden, It seems that we need all of the features
> could
> >> be
> >> > > > > compiled
> >> > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > >>>> > source tarball (i.e. non-git workspace) before the
> >> > release,
> >> > > > but
> >> > > > > > this
> >> > > > > > > >>>> seems
> >> > > > > > > >>>> > to be not the case in the tarball. See JIRA HAWQ-867
> >> > > (Replace
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > >>>> > git-submobule mechanism with git-clone). I think we
> >> need a
> >> > > new
> >> > > > > > > source
> >> > > > > > > >>>> > version.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Guo, Goden, it would be great if you guys could help
> all
> >> of
> >> > us
> >> > > > > > follow
> >> > > > > > > >>>> this
> >> > > > > > > >>>> release train by filing blocking JIRAs for the
> >> > > 2.0.0-incubating
> >> > > > > > > >>>> release. The
> >> > > > > > > >>>> way it currently stands, we seem to only have 1
> blocking
> >> > JIRA:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334000/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Roman.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.

Thanks Goden!

To close the loop on the other thread that has to do with dependencies
management,
I'd like to ask that whoever cuts the branch notifies the list
immediately so I don't
have to wait for the tarball to be put up for vote in order to provide
feedback on
the build.

Thanks,
Roman.

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> I'm fine with this one-time approach. Please moving forward creating a new
> branch and deal with the version issue , then I'll check and respin the
> voting process.
> I've also updated JIRA release version for this one to "*2.0.0.0-incubating*"
> to be consistent as well as wiki page.
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:47 AM Lei Chang <le...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Since this is blocking the release and this release is only for IP cleanup,
>> and considering the version number change and merge or a new branch is just
>> a minor issue, I think the easiest way is to create a new branch
>> "2.0.0.0-incubating" and unblock the release.
>>
>> And for future releases, merge makes more sense.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Lei
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>
>> > Another benefit to recreate the branch is if we finally decide to use
>> > 4-digits version. We should create the branch name as
>> '2.0.0.0-incubating'.
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Radar
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Vineet Goel <vv...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Radar,
>> > >
>> > > I understand that we have a clean slate right now in terms of releases,
>> > so
>> > > it's not a huge issue re-creating the branch. However, going forward,
>> we
>> > > should follow the process to be able to do proper release management
>> and
>> > > change control.
>> > >
>> > > So, should we make an exception for this one time in the spirit of
>> > getting
>> > > our first release out asap?
>> > > I think Goden, as the release manager should make that call.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks
>> > > -Vineet
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi Vineet,
>> > > >
>> > > > Merge or re-create the branch is almost the same for our current
>> > status.
>> > > >
>> > > > Re-create the branch can make all our good changes in, and it's more
>> > > clear,
>> > > > users can easy find out where it cut out, just following one version
>> > > change
>> > > > commit.
>> > > >
>> > > > Anyway, I'm fine with each way. Thanks.
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > > Radar
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Vineet Goel <vv...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Radar,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The whole point of cutting a branch was to stabilize it for the
>> first
>> > > > > release. Why would we discard it and start a new one from master?
>> Any
>> > > > > changes since the 2.0.0-incubating branch needs to go in the next
>> > > release
>> > > > > scope (unless selective back-porting is necessary to meet the first
>> > > > release
>> > > > > scope).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks
>> > > > > -Vineet
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Since we have a lot of commits for this release after creating
>> the
>> > > > > branch.
>> > > > > > I will re-create the branch. So the first blocking issue is gone.
>> > > > Nothing
>> > > > > > need to be merged.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Any concerns, please let me know. Thanks.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Regards,
>> > > > > > Radar
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <tyao@pivotal.io
>> >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > So we have 2 blocking issues:
>> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-867  (need to port
>> > this
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > incubating branch)
>> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892  (version
>> naming
>> > > > issue)
>> > > > > > > Anyone can help to resolve them, please reply ASAP.
>> > > > > > > -Goden
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:59 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <
>> tyao@pivotal.io>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > We found an issue during discussion:
>> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892
>> > > > > > > > We need to contain "incubating" in the version and hawq
>> > --version
>> > > > > > > command.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Thanks
>> > > > > > > > -Goden
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:24 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <
>> > tyao@pivotal.io
>> > > >
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >> @Roman - for this JIRA, per Lei's suggestion, it's not
>> > blocking
>> > > > this
>> > > > > > > >> release (as no IP issues) , so I'll update the release info
>> in
>> > > the
>> > > > > > JIRA.
>> > > > > > > >> HAWQ-783 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-783>
>> > > Remove
>> > > > > > > quicklz
>> > > > > > > >> in medadata
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <
>> > > tyao@pivotal.io>
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >>> Thanks Guo, for your info. This JIRA was not marked in this
>> > > > > release.
>> > > > > > so
>> > > > > > > >>> next time, if you think this is required, please mark it
>> for
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > release
>> > > > > > > >>> and contact release manager ASAP.
>> > > > > > > >>> I'm checking this JIRA for details but I see it is closed
>> > > > already.
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:20 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
>> > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Guo Gang <
>> paulguo@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>>> > Goden, It seems that we need all of the features could
>> be
>> > > > > compiled
>> > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > >>>> > source tarball (i.e. non-git workspace) before the
>> > release,
>> > > > but
>> > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > >>>> seems
>> > > > > > > >>>> > to be not the case in the tarball. See JIRA HAWQ-867
>> > > (Replace
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > >>>> > git-submobule mechanism with git-clone). I think we
>> need a
>> > > new
>> > > > > > > source
>> > > > > > > >>>> > version.
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> Guo, Goden, it would be great if you guys could help all
>> of
>> > us
>> > > > > > follow
>> > > > > > > >>>> this
>> > > > > > > >>>> release train by filing blocking JIRAs for the
>> > > 2.0.0-incubating
>> > > > > > > >>>> release. The
>> > > > > > > >>>> way it currently stands, we seem to only have 1 blocking
>> > JIRA:
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334000/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
>> > > > > > > >>>> Roman.
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by "Ting(Goden) Yao" <ty...@pivotal.io>.

I'm fine with this one-time approach. Please moving forward creating a new
branch and deal with the version issue , then I'll check and respin the
voting process.
I've also updated JIRA release version for this one to "*2.0.0.0-incubating*"
to be consistent as well as wiki page.

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:47 AM Lei Chang <le...@apache.org> wrote:

> Since this is blocking the release and this release is only for IP cleanup,
> and considering the version number change and merge or a new branch is just
> a minor issue, I think the easiest way is to create a new branch
> "2.0.0.0-incubating" and unblock the release.
>
> And for future releases, merge makes more sense.
>
> Cheers
> Lei
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > Another benefit to recreate the branch is if we finally decide to use
> > 4-digits version. We should create the branch name as
> '2.0.0.0-incubating'.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Radar
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Vineet Goel <vv...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Radar,
> > >
> > > I understand that we have a clean slate right now in terms of releases,
> > so
> > > it's not a huge issue re-creating the branch. However, going forward,
> we
> > > should follow the process to be able to do proper release management
> and
> > > change control.
> > >
> > > So, should we make an exception for this one time in the spirit of
> > getting
> > > our first release out asap?
> > > I think Goden, as the release manager should make that call.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > -Vineet
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Vineet,
> > > >
> > > > Merge or re-create the branch is almost the same for our current
> > status.
> > > >
> > > > Re-create the branch can make all our good changes in, and it's more
> > > clear,
> > > > users can easy find out where it cut out, just following one version
> > > change
> > > > commit.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, I'm fine with each way. Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Radar
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Vineet Goel <vv...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Radar,
> > > > >
> > > > > The whole point of cutting a branch was to stabilize it for the
> first
> > > > > release. Why would we discard it and start a new one from master?
> Any
> > > > > changes since the 2.0.0-incubating branch needs to go in the next
> > > release
> > > > > scope (unless selective back-porting is necessary to meet the first
> > > > release
> > > > > scope).
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > -Vineet
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Since we have a lot of commits for this release after creating
> the
> > > > > branch.
> > > > > > I will re-create the branch. So the first blocking issue is gone.
> > > > Nothing
> > > > > > need to be merged.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any concerns, please let me know. Thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Radar
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <tyao@pivotal.io
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > So we have 2 blocking issues:
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-867  (need to port
> > this
> > > > to
> > > > > > > incubating branch)
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892  (version
> naming
> > > > issue)
> > > > > > > Anyone can help to resolve them, please reply ASAP.
> > > > > > > -Goden
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:59 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <
> tyao@pivotal.io>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We found an issue during discussion:
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892
> > > > > > > > We need to contain "incubating" in the version and hawq
> > --version
> > > > > > > command.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > -Goden
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:24 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <
> > tyao@pivotal.io
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> @Roman - for this JIRA, per Lei's suggestion, it's not
> > blocking
> > > > this
> > > > > > > >> release (as no IP issues) , so I'll update the release info
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > JIRA.
> > > > > > > >> HAWQ-783 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-783>
> > > Remove
> > > > > > > quicklz
> > > > > > > >> in medadata
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <
> > > tyao@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> Thanks Guo, for your info. This JIRA was not marked in this
> > > > > release.
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > >>> next time, if you think this is required, please mark it
> for
> > > the
> > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > >>> and contact release manager ASAP.
> > > > > > > >>> I'm checking this JIRA for details but I see it is closed
> > > > already.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:20 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Guo Gang <
> paulguo@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> > Goden, It seems that we need all of the features could
> be
> > > > > compiled
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >>>> > source tarball (i.e. non-git workspace) before the
> > release,
> > > > but
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > >>>> seems
> > > > > > > >>>> > to be not the case in the tarball. See JIRA HAWQ-867
> > > (Replace
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> > git-submobule mechanism with git-clone). I think we
> need a
> > > new
> > > > > > > source
> > > > > > > >>>> > version.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Guo, Goden, it would be great if you guys could help all
> of
> > us
> > > > > > follow
> > > > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > > > >>>> release train by filing blocking JIRAs for the
> > > 2.0.0-incubating
> > > > > > > >>>> release. The
> > > > > > > >>>> way it currently stands, we seem to only have 1 blocking
> > JIRA:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334000/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>>> Roman.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by Lei Chang <le...@apache.org>.

Since this is blocking the release and this release is only for IP cleanup,
and considering the version number change and merge or a new branch is just
a minor issue, I think the easiest way is to create a new branch
"2.0.0.0-incubating" and unblock the release.

And for future releases, merge makes more sense.

Cheers
Lei


On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> Another benefit to recreate the branch is if we finally decide to use
> 4-digits version. We should create the branch name as '2.0.0.0-incubating'.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Radar
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Vineet Goel <vv...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Radar,
> >
> > I understand that we have a clean slate right now in terms of releases,
> so
> > it's not a huge issue re-creating the branch. However, going forward, we
> > should follow the process to be able to do proper release management and
> > change control.
> >
> > So, should we make an exception for this one time in the spirit of
> getting
> > our first release out asap?
> > I think Goden, as the release manager should make that call.
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Vineet
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Vineet,
> > >
> > > Merge or re-create the branch is almost the same for our current
> status.
> > >
> > > Re-create the branch can make all our good changes in, and it's more
> > clear,
> > > users can easy find out where it cut out, just following one version
> > change
> > > commit.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I'm fine with each way. Thanks.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Radar
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Vineet Goel <vv...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Radar,
> > > >
> > > > The whole point of cutting a branch was to stabilize it for the first
> > > > release. Why would we discard it and start a new one from master? Any
> > > > changes since the 2.0.0-incubating branch needs to go in the next
> > release
> > > > scope (unless selective back-porting is necessary to meet the first
> > > release
> > > > scope).
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > -Vineet
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Since we have a lot of commits for this release after creating the
> > > > branch.
> > > > > I will re-create the branch. So the first blocking issue is gone.
> > > Nothing
> > > > > need to be merged.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any concerns, please let me know. Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Radar
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > So we have 2 blocking issues:
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-867  (need to port
> this
> > > to
> > > > > > incubating branch)
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892  (version naming
> > > issue)
> > > > > > Anyone can help to resolve them, please reply ASAP.
> > > > > > -Goden
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:59 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > We found an issue during discussion:
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892
> > > > > > > We need to contain "incubating" in the version and hawq
> --version
> > > > > > command.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > -Goden
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:24 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <
> tyao@pivotal.io
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> @Roman - for this JIRA, per Lei's suggestion, it's not
> blocking
> > > this
> > > > > > >> release (as no IP issues) , so I'll update the release info in
> > the
> > > > > JIRA.
> > > > > > >> HAWQ-783 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-783>
> > Remove
> > > > > > quicklz
> > > > > > >> in medadata
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <
> > tyao@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Thanks Guo, for your info. This JIRA was not marked in this
> > > > release.
> > > > > so
> > > > > > >>> next time, if you think this is required, please mark it for
> > the
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > >>> and contact release manager ASAP.
> > > > > > >>> I'm checking this JIRA for details but I see it is closed
> > > already.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:20 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Guo Gang <paulguo@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> > Goden, It seems that we need all of the features could be
> > > > compiled
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > >>>> > source tarball (i.e. non-git workspace) before the
> release,
> > > but
> > > > > this
> > > > > > >>>> seems
> > > > > > >>>> > to be not the case in the tarball. See JIRA HAWQ-867
> > (Replace
> > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> > git-submobule mechanism with git-clone). I think we need a
> > new
> > > > > > source
> > > > > > >>>> > version.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Guo, Goden, it would be great if you guys could help all of
> us
> > > > > follow
> > > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > > >>>> release train by filing blocking JIRAs for the
> > 2.0.0-incubating
> > > > > > >>>> release. The
> > > > > > >>>> way it currently stands, we seem to only have 1 blocking
> JIRA:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334000/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>> Roman.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io>.

Another benefit to recreate the branch is if we finally decide to use
4-digits version. We should create the branch name as '2.0.0.0-incubating'.

Thanks.

Regards,
Radar

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Vineet Goel <vv...@apache.org> wrote:

> Radar,
>
> I understand that we have a clean slate right now in terms of releases, so
> it's not a huge issue re-creating the branch. However, going forward, we
> should follow the process to be able to do proper release management and
> change control.
>
> So, should we make an exception for this one time in the spirit of getting
> our first release out asap?
> I think Goden, as the release manager should make that call.
>
> Thanks
> -Vineet
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > Hi Vineet,
> >
> > Merge or re-create the branch is almost the same for our current status.
> >
> > Re-create the branch can make all our good changes in, and it's more
> clear,
> > users can easy find out where it cut out, just following one version
> change
> > commit.
> >
> > Anyway, I'm fine with each way. Thanks.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Radar
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Vineet Goel <vv...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Radar,
> > >
> > > The whole point of cutting a branch was to stabilize it for the first
> > > release. Why would we discard it and start a new one from master? Any
> > > changes since the 2.0.0-incubating branch needs to go in the next
> release
> > > scope (unless selective back-porting is necessary to meet the first
> > release
> > > scope).
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > -Vineet
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Since we have a lot of commits for this release after creating the
> > > branch.
> > > > I will re-create the branch. So the first blocking issue is gone.
> > Nothing
> > > > need to be merged.
> > > >
> > > > Any concerns, please let me know. Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Radar
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So we have 2 blocking issues:
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-867  (need to port this
> > to
> > > > > incubating branch)
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892  (version naming
> > issue)
> > > > > Anyone can help to resolve them, please reply ASAP.
> > > > > -Goden
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:59 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > We found an issue during discussion:
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892
> > > > > > We need to contain "incubating" in the version and hawq --version
> > > > > command.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > -Goden
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:24 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <tyao@pivotal.io
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> @Roman - for this JIRA, per Lei's suggestion, it's not blocking
> > this
> > > > > >> release (as no IP issues) , so I'll update the release info in
> the
> > > > JIRA.
> > > > > >> HAWQ-783 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-783>
> Remove
> > > > > quicklz
> > > > > >> in medadata
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <
> tyao@pivotal.io>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Thanks Guo, for your info. This JIRA was not marked in this
> > > release.
> > > > so
> > > > > >>> next time, if you think this is required, please mark it for
> the
> > > > > release
> > > > > >>> and contact release manager ASAP.
> > > > > >>> I'm checking this JIRA for details but I see it is closed
> > already.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:20 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > roman@shaposhnik.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Guo Gang <pa...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>> > Goden, It seems that we need all of the features could be
> > > compiled
> > > > > in
> > > > > >>>> > source tarball (i.e. non-git workspace) before the release,
> > but
> > > > this
> > > > > >>>> seems
> > > > > >>>> > to be not the case in the tarball. See JIRA HAWQ-867
> (Replace
> > > the
> > > > > >>>> > git-submobule mechanism with git-clone). I think we need a
> new
> > > > > source
> > > > > >>>> > version.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Guo, Goden, it would be great if you guys could help all of us
> > > > follow
> > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > >>>> release train by filing blocking JIRAs for the
> 2.0.0-incubating
> > > > > >>>> release. The
> > > > > >>>> way it currently stands, we seem to only have 1 blocking JIRA:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334000/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>> Roman.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by Lei Chang <le...@apache.org>.

Good discussion. since it is the first hawq release, all the release
related processes are not discussed on this mailing list.

I think it is a good time to have an open discussion around it.

Cheers
Lei


On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Vineet Goel <vv...@apache.org> wrote:

> Radar,
>
> I understand that we have a clean slate right now in terms of releases, so
> it's not a huge issue re-creating the branch. However, going forward, we
> should follow the process to be able to do proper release management and
> change control.
>
> So, should we make an exception for this one time in the spirit of getting
> our first release out asap?
> I think Goden, as the release manager should make that call.
>
> Thanks
> -Vineet
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > Hi Vineet,
> >
> > Merge or re-create the branch is almost the same for our current status.
> >
> > Re-create the branch can make all our good changes in, and it's more
> clear,
> > users can easy find out where it cut out, just following one version
> change
> > commit.
> >
> > Anyway, I'm fine with each way. Thanks.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Radar
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Vineet Goel <vv...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Radar,
> > >
> > > The whole point of cutting a branch was to stabilize it for the first
> > > release. Why would we discard it and start a new one from master? Any
> > > changes since the 2.0.0-incubating branch needs to go in the next
> release
> > > scope (unless selective back-porting is necessary to meet the first
> > release
> > > scope).
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > -Vineet
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Since we have a lot of commits for this release after creating the
> > > branch.
> > > > I will re-create the branch. So the first blocking issue is gone.
> > Nothing
> > > > need to be merged.
> > > >
> > > > Any concerns, please let me know. Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Radar
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So we have 2 blocking issues:
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-867  (need to port this
> > to
> > > > > incubating branch)
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892  (version naming
> > issue)
> > > > > Anyone can help to resolve them, please reply ASAP.
> > > > > -Goden
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:59 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > We found an issue during discussion:
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892
> > > > > > We need to contain "incubating" in the version and hawq --version
> > > > > command.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > -Goden
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:24 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <tyao@pivotal.io
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> @Roman - for this JIRA, per Lei's suggestion, it's not blocking
> > this
> > > > > >> release (as no IP issues) , so I'll update the release info in
> the
> > > > JIRA.
> > > > > >> HAWQ-783 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-783>
> Remove
> > > > > quicklz
> > > > > >> in medadata
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <
> tyao@pivotal.io>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Thanks Guo, for your info. This JIRA was not marked in this
> > > release.
> > > > so
> > > > > >>> next time, if you think this is required, please mark it for
> the
> > > > > release
> > > > > >>> and contact release manager ASAP.
> > > > > >>> I'm checking this JIRA for details but I see it is closed
> > already.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:20 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > roman@shaposhnik.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Guo Gang <pa...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>> > Goden, It seems that we need all of the features could be
> > > compiled
> > > > > in
> > > > > >>>> > source tarball (i.e. non-git workspace) before the release,
> > but
> > > > this
> > > > > >>>> seems
> > > > > >>>> > to be not the case in the tarball. See JIRA HAWQ-867
> (Replace
> > > the
> > > > > >>>> > git-submobule mechanism with git-clone). I think we need a
> new
> > > > > source
> > > > > >>>> > version.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Guo, Goden, it would be great if you guys could help all of us
> > > > follow
> > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > >>>> release train by filing blocking JIRAs for the
> 2.0.0-incubating
> > > > > >>>> release. The
> > > > > >>>> way it currently stands, we seem to only have 1 blocking JIRA:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334000/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>> Roman.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by Vineet Goel <vv...@apache.org>.

Radar,

I understand that we have a clean slate right now in terms of releases, so
it's not a huge issue re-creating the branch. However, going forward, we
should follow the process to be able to do proper release management and
change control.

So, should we make an exception for this one time in the spirit of getting
our first release out asap?
I think Goden, as the release manager should make that call.

Thanks
-Vineet



On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> Hi Vineet,
>
> Merge or re-create the branch is almost the same for our current status.
>
> Re-create the branch can make all our good changes in, and it's more clear,
> users can easy find out where it cut out, just following one version change
> commit.
>
> Anyway, I'm fine with each way. Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Radar
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Vineet Goel <vv...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Radar,
> >
> > The whole point of cutting a branch was to stabilize it for the first
> > release. Why would we discard it and start a new one from master? Any
> > changes since the 2.0.0-incubating branch needs to go in the next release
> > scope (unless selective back-porting is necessary to meet the first
> release
> > scope).
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Vineet
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Since we have a lot of commits for this release after creating the
> > branch.
> > > I will re-create the branch. So the first blocking issue is gone.
> Nothing
> > > need to be merged.
> > >
> > > Any concerns, please let me know. Thanks.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Radar
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So we have 2 blocking issues:
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-867  (need to port this
> to
> > > > incubating branch)
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892  (version naming
> issue)
> > > > Anyone can help to resolve them, please reply ASAP.
> > > > -Goden
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:59 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > We found an issue during discussion:
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892
> > > > > We need to contain "incubating" in the version and hawq --version
> > > > command.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > -Goden
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:24 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> @Roman - for this JIRA, per Lei's suggestion, it's not blocking
> this
> > > > >> release (as no IP issues) , so I'll update the release info in the
> > > JIRA.
> > > > >> HAWQ-783 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-783> Remove
> > > > quicklz
> > > > >> in medadata
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Thanks Guo, for your info. This JIRA was not marked in this
> > release.
> > > so
> > > > >>> next time, if you think this is required, please mark it for the
> > > > release
> > > > >>> and contact release manager ASAP.
> > > > >>> I'm checking this JIRA for details but I see it is closed
> already.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:20 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > roman@shaposhnik.org
> > > > >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Guo Gang <pa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>>> > Goden, It seems that we need all of the features could be
> > compiled
> > > > in
> > > > >>>> > source tarball (i.e. non-git workspace) before the release,
> but
> > > this
> > > > >>>> seems
> > > > >>>> > to be not the case in the tarball. See JIRA HAWQ-867 (Replace
> > the
> > > > >>>> > git-submobule mechanism with git-clone). I think we need a new
> > > > source
> > > > >>>> > version.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Guo, Goden, it would be great if you guys could help all of us
> > > follow
> > > > >>>> this
> > > > >>>> release train by filing blocking JIRAs for the 2.0.0-incubating
> > > > >>>> release. The
> > > > >>>> way it currently stands, we seem to only have 1 blocking JIRA:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334000/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>> Roman.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io>.

Hi Vineet,

Merge or re-create the branch is almost the same for our current status.

Re-create the branch can make all our good changes in, and it's more clear,
users can easy find out where it cut out, just following one version change
commit.

Anyway, I'm fine with each way. Thanks.

Regards,
Radar

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Vineet Goel <vv...@apache.org> wrote:

> Radar,
>
> The whole point of cutting a branch was to stabilize it for the first
> release. Why would we discard it and start a new one from master? Any
> changes since the 2.0.0-incubating branch needs to go in the next release
> scope (unless selective back-porting is necessary to meet the first release
> scope).
>
> Thanks
> -Vineet
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > Since we have a lot of commits for this release after creating the
> branch.
> > I will re-create the branch. So the first blocking issue is gone. Nothing
> > need to be merged.
> >
> > Any concerns, please let me know. Thanks.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Radar
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > > So we have 2 blocking issues:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-867  (need to port this to
> > > incubating branch)
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892  (version naming issue)
> > > Anyone can help to resolve them, please reply ASAP.
> > > -Goden
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:59 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > We found an issue during discussion:
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892
> > > > We need to contain "incubating" in the version and hawq --version
> > > command.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > -Goden
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:24 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> @Roman - for this JIRA, per Lei's suggestion, it's not blocking this
> > > >> release (as no IP issues) , so I'll update the release info in the
> > JIRA.
> > > >> HAWQ-783 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-783> Remove
> > > quicklz
> > > >> in medadata
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Thanks Guo, for your info. This JIRA was not marked in this
> release.
> > so
> > > >>> next time, if you think this is required, please mark it for the
> > > release
> > > >>> and contact release manager ASAP.
> > > >>> I'm checking this JIRA for details but I see it is closed already.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:20 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > roman@shaposhnik.org
> > > >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Guo Gang <pa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>>> > Goden, It seems that we need all of the features could be
> compiled
> > > in
> > > >>>> > source tarball (i.e. non-git workspace) before the release, but
> > this
> > > >>>> seems
> > > >>>> > to be not the case in the tarball. See JIRA HAWQ-867 (Replace
> the
> > > >>>> > git-submobule mechanism with git-clone). I think we need a new
> > > source
> > > >>>> > version.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Guo, Goden, it would be great if you guys could help all of us
> > follow
> > > >>>> this
> > > >>>> release train by filing blocking JIRAs for the 2.0.0-incubating
> > > >>>> release. The
> > > >>>> way it currently stands, we seem to only have 1 blocking JIRA:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334000/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>> Roman.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by Vineet Goel <vv...@apache.org>.

Radar,

The whole point of cutting a branch was to stabilize it for the first
release. Why would we discard it and start a new one from master? Any
changes since the 2.0.0-incubating branch needs to go in the next release
scope (unless selective back-porting is necessary to meet the first release
scope).

Thanks
-Vineet


On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> Since we have a lot of commits for this release after creating the branch.
> I will re-create the branch. So the first blocking issue is gone. Nothing
> need to be merged.
>
> Any concerns, please let me know. Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Radar
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > So we have 2 blocking issues:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-867  (need to port this to
> > incubating branch)
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892  (version naming issue)
> > Anyone can help to resolve them, please reply ASAP.
> > -Goden
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:59 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > > We found an issue during discussion:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892
> > > We need to contain "incubating" in the version and hawq --version
> > command.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > -Goden
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:24 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> @Roman - for this JIRA, per Lei's suggestion, it's not blocking this
> > >> release (as no IP issues) , so I'll update the release info in the
> JIRA.
> > >> HAWQ-783 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-783> Remove
> > quicklz
> > >> in medadata
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Thanks Guo, for your info. This JIRA was not marked in this release.
> so
> > >>> next time, if you think this is required, please mark it for the
> > release
> > >>> and contact release manager ASAP.
> > >>> I'm checking this JIRA for details but I see it is closed already.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:20 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> roman@shaposhnik.org
> > >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Guo Gang <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> > Goden, It seems that we need all of the features could be compiled
> > in
> > >>>> > source tarball (i.e. non-git workspace) before the release, but
> this
> > >>>> seems
> > >>>> > to be not the case in the tarball. See JIRA HAWQ-867 (Replace the
> > >>>> > git-submobule mechanism with git-clone). I think we need a new
> > source
> > >>>> > version.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Guo, Goden, it would be great if you guys could help all of us
> follow
> > >>>> this
> > >>>> release train by filing blocking JIRAs for the 2.0.0-incubating
> > >>>> release. The
> > >>>> way it currently stands, we seem to only have 1 blocking JIRA:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334000/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Roman.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by Radar Da lei <rl...@pivotal.io>.

Since we have a lot of commits for this release after creating the branch.
I will re-create the branch. So the first blocking issue is gone. Nothing
need to be merged.

Any concerns, please let me know. Thanks.

Regards,
Radar

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> So we have 2 blocking issues:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-867  (need to port this to
> incubating branch)
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892  (version naming issue)
> Anyone can help to resolve them, please reply ASAP.
> -Goden
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:59 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > We found an issue during discussion:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892
> > We need to contain "incubating" in the version and hawq --version
> command.
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Goden
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:24 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> >> @Roman - for this JIRA, per Lei's suggestion, it's not blocking this
> >> release (as no IP issues) , so I'll update the release info in the JIRA.
> >> HAWQ-783 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-783> Remove
> quicklz
> >> in medadata
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks Guo, for your info. This JIRA was not marked in this release. so
> >>> next time, if you think this is required, please mark it for the
> release
> >>> and contact release manager ASAP.
> >>> I'm checking this JIRA for details but I see it is closed already.
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:20 AM Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Guo Gang <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> > Goden, It seems that we need all of the features could be compiled
> in
> >>>> > source tarball (i.e. non-git workspace) before the release, but this
> >>>> seems
> >>>> > to be not the case in the tarball. See JIRA HAWQ-867 (Replace the
> >>>> > git-submobule mechanism with git-clone). I think we need a new
> source
> >>>> > version.
> >>>>
> >>>> Guo, Goden, it would be great if you guys could help all of us follow
> >>>> this
> >>>> release train by filing blocking JIRAs for the 2.0.0-incubating
> >>>> release. The
> >>>> way it currently stands, we seem to only have 1 blocking JIRA:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334000/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Roman.
> >>>>
> >>>
>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by "Ting(Goden) Yao" <ty...@pivotal.io>.

So we have 2 blocking issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-867  (need to port this to
incubating branch)
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892  (version naming issue)
Anyone can help to resolve them, please reply ASAP.
-Goden

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:59 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> We found an issue during discussion:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892
> We need to contain "incubating" in the version and hawq --version command.
>
> Thanks
> -Goden
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:24 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
>> @Roman - for this JIRA, per Lei's suggestion, it's not blocking this
>> release (as no IP issues) , so I'll update the release info in the JIRA.
>> HAWQ-783 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-783> Remove quicklz
>> in medadata
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Guo, for your info. This JIRA was not marked in this release. so
>>> next time, if you think this is required, please mark it for the release
>>> and contact release manager ASAP.
>>> I'm checking this JIRA for details but I see it is closed already.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:20 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Guo Gang <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Goden, It seems that we need all of the features could be compiled in
>>>> > source tarball (i.e. non-git workspace) before the release, but this
>>>> seems
>>>> > to be not the case in the tarball. See JIRA HAWQ-867 (Replace the
>>>> > git-submobule mechanism with git-clone). I think we need a new source
>>>> > version.
>>>>
>>>> Guo, Goden, it would be great if you guys could help all of us follow
>>>> this
>>>> release train by filing blocking JIRAs for the 2.0.0-incubating
>>>> release. The
>>>> way it currently stands, we seem to only have 1 blocking JIRA:
>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334000/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Roman.
>>>>
>>>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by "Ting(Goden) Yao" <ty...@pivotal.io>.

We found an issue during discussion:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892
We need to contain "incubating" in the version and hawq --version command.

Thanks
-Goden

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:24 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> @Roman - for this JIRA, per Lei's suggestion, it's not blocking this
> release (as no IP issues) , so I'll update the release info in the JIRA.
> HAWQ-783 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-783> Remove quicklz
> in medadata
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Guo, for your info. This JIRA was not marked in this release. so
>> next time, if you think this is required, please mark it for the release
>> and contact release manager ASAP.
>> I'm checking this JIRA for details but I see it is closed already.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:20 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Guo Gang <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Goden, It seems that we need all of the features could be compiled in
>>> > source tarball (i.e. non-git workspace) before the release, but this
>>> seems
>>> > to be not the case in the tarball. See JIRA HAWQ-867 (Replace the
>>> > git-submobule mechanism with git-clone). I think we need a new source
>>> > version.
>>>
>>> Guo, Goden, it would be great if you guys could help all of us follow
>>> this
>>> release train by filing blocking JIRAs for the 2.0.0-incubating release.
>>> The
>>> way it currently stands, we seem to only have 1 blocking JIRA:
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334000/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Roman.
>>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by "Ting(Goden) Yao" <ty...@pivotal.io>.

@Roman - for this JIRA, per Lei's suggestion, it's not blocking this
release (as no IP issues) , so I'll update the release info in the JIRA.
HAWQ-783 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-783> Remove quicklz in
medadata

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> Thanks Guo, for your info. This JIRA was not marked in this release. so
> next time, if you think this is required, please mark it for the release
> and contact release manager ASAP.
> I'm checking this JIRA for details but I see it is closed already.
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:20 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Guo Gang <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Goden, It seems that we need all of the features could be compiled in
>> > source tarball (i.e. non-git workspace) before the release, but this
>> seems
>> > to be not the case in the tarball. See JIRA HAWQ-867 (Replace the
>> > git-submobule mechanism with git-clone). I think we need a new source
>> > version.
>>
>> Guo, Goden, it would be great if you guys could help all of us follow this
>> release train by filing blocking JIRAs for the 2.0.0-incubating release.
>> The
>> way it currently stands, we seem to only have 1 blocking JIRA:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334000/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by "Ting(Goden) Yao" <ty...@pivotal.io>.

Thanks Guo, for your info. This JIRA was not marked in this release. so
next time, if you think this is required, please mark it for the release
and contact release manager ASAP.
I'm checking this JIRA for details but I see it is closed already.

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:20 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Guo Gang <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Goden, It seems that we need all of the features could be compiled in
> > source tarball (i.e. non-git workspace) before the release, but this
> seems
> > to be not the case in the tarball. See JIRA HAWQ-867 (Replace the
> > git-submobule mechanism with git-clone). I think we need a new source
> > version.
>
> Guo, Goden, it would be great if you guys could help all of us follow this
> release train by filing blocking JIRAs for the 2.0.0-incubating release.
> The
> way it currently stands, we seem to only have 1 blocking JIRA:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334000/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Guo Gang <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Goden, It seems that we need all of the features could be compiled in
> source tarball (i.e. non-git workspace) before the release, but this seems
> to be not the case in the tarball. See JIRA HAWQ-867 (Replace the
> git-submobule mechanism with git-clone). I think we need a new source
> version.

Guo, Goden, it would be great if you guys could help all of us follow this
release train by filing blocking JIRAs for the 2.0.0-incubating release. The
way it currently stands, we seem to only have 1 blocking JIRA:
    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334000/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel

Thanks,
Roman.

Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release

Posted by Guo Gang <pa...@gmail.com>.

Goden, It seems that we need all of the features could be compiled in
source tarball (i.e. non-git workspace) before the release, but this seems
to be not the case in the tarball. See JIRA HAWQ-867 (Replace the
git-submobule mechanism with git-clone). I think we need a new source
version. Thanks.

2016-07-02 1:23 GMT+08:00 Goden Yao <go...@apache.org>:

> Just a reminder: please download the source tarball, compile and check if
> there's any issues related to IP.
> Appreciate your feedback
>
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:19 PM Goden Yao <go...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > This is the 1st release for Apache HAWQ (incubating), version:
> > 2.0.0-incubating
> >
> > *It fixes the following issues:*
> > Clear all IP related issues for HAWQ and this is a source code tarball
> > only release.
> > Full list of JIRAs fixed/related to the release: link
> > <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/HAWQ+Release+2.0.0-incubating
> >
> >
> > *** Please download, review and vote by *Friday 6pm July 8, 2016 PST* ***
> > or When we have enough votes to bring this source tarball to IPMC
> >
> > *We're voting upon the source branch:*
> > 2.0.0-incubating
> >
> > *Source Files:*
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/2.0.0-incubating
> >
> > *KEYS file containing PGP Keys we use to sign the release:*
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/KEYS
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Goden
> >
>