You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@bookkeeper.apache.org by Jia Zhai <zh...@apache.org> on 2017/12/05 05:19:07 UTC
[VOTE] Apache BookKeeper Release 4.6.0, release candidate #0
Hi everyone,
Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the version
4.6.0, as follows:
[ ] +1, Approve the release
[ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
* Release notes [1]
* The official Apache source and binary distributions to be deployed
to dist.apache.org [2]
* All artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3]
* Source code tag "release-4.6.0" [4]
BookKeeper's KEYS file contains PGP keys we used to sign this
release:https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bookkeeper/KEYS
Please download these packages and review this release candidate:
- Review release notes
- Download the source package (verify md5, shasum, and asc) and follow the
instructions to build and run the bookkeeper service.
- Download the binary package (verify md5, shasum, and asc) and follow the
instructions to run the bookkeeper service.
- Review maven repo, release tag, licenses, and any other things you think
it is important to a release.
The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
Thanks,
Jia Zhai
[1] *https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759
<https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759>*
[2] *https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/bookkeeper-4.6.0-rc0/
<https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/bookkeeper-4.6.0-rc0/>*
[3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
orgapachebookkeeper-1021/
[4] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/tree/release-4.6.0
Re: [VOTE] Apache BookKeeper Release 4.6.0, release candidate #0
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
Here is the discussion thread -
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201712.mbox/browser
I think it is recommended to have items listed. so I would stick to what we
have now for this release (if there are easier way for managing license, we
can bring it in next release).
I updated the PR to reflect the dependencies. so we can move forward with
new RC.
- Sijie
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sent the email to legal-discuss mailing list.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 7, 2017 3:35 AM, "Ivan Kelly" <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> b) We don't need a separate NOTICE/LICENSE file for binary package, it
>> > should be same for both src and binary distribution.
>> >
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary
>>
>> I think for binary, you need to have stuff in the notice file. The
>> licensing how-to is mostly concerned with bundled source, which has the
>> license in the file anyhow. Binary is different so should be treated
>> separately.
>>
>>
>> According to the link you put here, it is not enforced. I think the
>> projects that I point out don't differentiate NOTICE files in src and
>> binary distribution. There is only one NOTICE used by both packages.
>>
>>
>> Only have phone until Monday, so won't be able to confirm til then, but
>> there a legal/licensing mailing list that helps with this kind of thing.
>>
>>
>> I can ask in the legal mailing list to confirm.
>>
>>
>> -Ivan
>>
>>
>> > Sent a PR for this proposed change:
>> > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/820
>> >
>> > - Sijie
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Probably not. Findbugs isn't needed for sure. Some others look like
>> code
>> > > generation. The binary packages need separate notices though, as they
>> > > schools only contain what they're legally obliged to.
>> > >
>> > > On Wed 6 Dec 2017, 18:10 Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I did the original notice file update, I will update. Some of these
>> > > > dependencies might not be needed actually.
>> > > >
>> > > > - Sijie
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > -1 from me unfortunately.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > There are a lot of files in lib/ the bookkeeper-all which aren't
>> > > > > covered in the notice:
>> > > > > com.google.code.findbugs-jsr305-3.0.2.jar
>> > > > > com.google.errorprone-error_prone_annotations-2.1.2.jar
>> > > > > com.twitter-jsr166e-1.0.0.jar
>> > > > > com.twitter-libthrift-0.5.0-7.jar
>> > > > > com.twitter-libthrift-0.5.0-7.jar
>> > > > > com.twitter-scrooge-core_2.11-4.16.0.jar
>> > > > > com.twitter-twitter-server_2.11-1.29.0.jar
>> > > > > javax.inject-javax.inject-1.jar
>> > > > > javax.servlet-javax.servlet-api-3.1.0.jar
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Bookkeeper-server notice doesn't cover:
>> > > > > com.google.code.findbugs-jsr305-3.0.2.jar
>> > > > > com.google.errorprone-error_prone_annotations-2.1.2.jar
>> > > > > javax.servlet-javax.servlet-api-3.1.0.jar
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Don't use the lists above as a basis to fix though. Whoever is
>> > > > > updating should doublecheck that the NOTICE files cover
>> everything in
>> > > > > lib. We're going to need a different NOTICE for bookkeeper-server
>> and
>> > > > > bookkeeper-all also. It's probably worth getting maven to try and
>> > > > > generate these files for us.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > Otherwise everything looks good.
>> > > > > 1. checksums and signature checked out
>> > > > > 2. findbugs, rat, and tests ran cleanly
>> > > > > 3. Jepsen tests passed
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The other thing that's needed for the next RC is that the breaks
>> in
>> > > > > the API (around thrown exceptions), need to be noted clearly and
>> > > > > loudly in the release notes.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > Ivan
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > > > Thanks a lot Enrico for the verification, especially for the
>> notes.
>> > > > Would
>> > > > > > you please also help open some issues on github to track your
>> > > findings
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > suggestions?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Enrico Olivelli <
>> > > eolivelli@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> +1 (non binding)
>> > > > > >> looks good to me
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> - Built and tested candidate source tar ball
>> > > > > >> - Run Bookie and basic Bookie shel commands from the "dist all"
>> > > > package
>> > > > > >> - Checked tag on GitHub
>> > > > > >> - All tests are passing on my downstream projects (some of them
>> > need
>> > > > > >> re-compiling or minor changes)
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Thank you Jia for driving this and to every body, I expect
>> great
>> > > > > >> improvements in production
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Notes:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> 1) There is a failing test on my dev machine, even on master. I
>> > > think
>> > > > > this
>> > > > > >> is not blocker for the release. It must be some problem on my
>> > > machine:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(org.apache.
>> > > > > >> bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest)
>> > > > > >> Time elapsed: 12.871 sec <<< FAILURE!
>> > > > > >> java.lang.AssertionError: Bookie should be up and running
>> > > > > >> at
>> > > > > >> org.apache.bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest.
>> > > > > >> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(
>> > > > > >> BookieInitializationTest.java:602)
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> 2) NOTICE reports very old copyright note (dates to 2015) -> we
>> > > should
>> > > > > >> check this on every file, not just this one, it is not a
>> problem I
>> > > > think
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> 3) EnsemblePlacementPolicy changed signatures of methods ->
>> > compile
>> > > > time
>> > > > > >> issue on downstream projects, I already knew, not a problem. I
>> > will
>> > > > not
>> > > > > >> create any issue.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> 4) BookKeeper.Builder#build -> now throws BKException ->
>> compile
>> > > time
>> > > > > issue
>> > > > > >> on downstream projects, but it is not a showstopper. I wlil not
>> > > create
>> > > > > any
>> > > > > >> issue. This was expected.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> 5) Dropped dependency on commons collections -> so this
>> > disappeared
>> > > > from
>> > > > > >> downstream projects -> it is not a real problem, downstream
>> > project
>> > > > must
>> > > > > >> explicitly declare their own dependencies, it is not a BK
>> problem.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> 6) We have better "BKException#getMessage", this has some
>> impact
>> > on
>> > > > test
>> > > > > >> cases of downstream projects -> it is not a problem, I consider
>> > > this a
>> > > > > bug
>> > > > > >> on downstream projects, testcases should be more robust as BK
>> > > provides
>> > > > > >> typed Exceptions
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Enrico
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> 2017-12-05 6:19 GMT+01:00 Jia Zhai <zh...@apache.org>:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> > Hi everyone,
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the
>> > version
>> > > > > >> > 4.6.0, as follows:
>> > > > > >> > [ ] +1, Approve the release
>> > > > > >> > [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
>> > > > comments)
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which
>> > > > > includes:
>> > > > > >> > * Release notes [1]
>> > > > > >> > * The official Apache source and binary distributions to be
>> > > deployed
>> > > > > >> > to dist.apache.org [2]
>> > > > > >> > * All artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central
>> Repository
>> > [3]
>> > > > > >> > * Source code tag "release-4.6.0" [4]
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > BookKeeper's KEYS file contains PGP keys we used to sign this
>> > > > > >> > release:https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/
>> > > bookkeeper/KEYS
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > Please download these packages and review this release
>> > candidate:
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > - Review release notes
>> > > > > >> > - Download the source package (verify md5, shasum, and asc)
>> and
>> > > > follow
>> > > > > >> the
>> > > > > >> > instructions to build and run the bookkeeper service.
>> > > > > >> > - Download the binary package (verify md5, shasum, and asc)
>> and
>> > > > follow
>> > > > > >> the
>> > > > > >> > instructions to run the bookkeeper service.
>> > > > > >> > - Review maven repo, release tag, licenses, and any other
>> things
>> > > you
>> > > > > >> think
>> > > > > >> > it is important to a release.
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>> > > > majority
>> > > > > >> > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > Thanks,
>> > > > > >> > Jia Zhai
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > [1] *https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759
>> > > > > >> > <https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759>*
>> > > > > >> > [2] *https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/
>> > > > > >> > bookkeeper-4.6.0-rc0/
>> > > > > >> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/bookkeepe
>> > > > > r-4.6.0-rc0/
>> > > > > >> >*
>> > > > > >> > [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
>> > > > > >> > orgapachebookkeeper-1021/
>> > > > > >> > [4] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/tree/release-4.6.0
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache BookKeeper Release 4.6.0, release candidate #0
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
Sent the email to legal-discuss mailing list.
- Sijie
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 7, 2017 3:35 AM, "Ivan Kelly" <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> b) We don't need a separate NOTICE/LICENSE file for binary package, it
> > should be same for both src and binary distribution.
> >
> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary
>
> I think for binary, you need to have stuff in the notice file. The
> licensing how-to is mostly concerned with bundled source, which has the
> license in the file anyhow. Binary is different so should be treated
> separately.
>
>
> According to the link you put here, it is not enforced. I think the
> projects that I point out don't differentiate NOTICE files in src and
> binary distribution. There is only one NOTICE used by both packages.
>
>
> Only have phone until Monday, so won't be able to confirm til then, but
> there a legal/licensing mailing list that helps with this kind of thing.
>
>
> I can ask in the legal mailing list to confirm.
>
>
> -Ivan
>
>
> > Sent a PR for this proposed change:
> > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/820
> >
> > - Sijie
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Probably not. Findbugs isn't needed for sure. Some others look like
> code
> > > generation. The binary packages need separate notices though, as they
> > > schools only contain what they're legally obliged to.
> > >
> > > On Wed 6 Dec 2017, 18:10 Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I did the original notice file update, I will update. Some of these
> > > > dependencies might not be needed actually.
> > > >
> > > > - Sijie
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > -1 from me unfortunately.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are a lot of files in lib/ the bookkeeper-all which aren't
> > > > > covered in the notice:
> > > > > com.google.code.findbugs-jsr305-3.0.2.jar
> > > > > com.google.errorprone-error_prone_annotations-2.1.2.jar
> > > > > com.twitter-jsr166e-1.0.0.jar
> > > > > com.twitter-libthrift-0.5.0-7.jar
> > > > > com.twitter-libthrift-0.5.0-7.jar
> > > > > com.twitter-scrooge-core_2.11-4.16.0.jar
> > > > > com.twitter-twitter-server_2.11-1.29.0.jar
> > > > > javax.inject-javax.inject-1.jar
> > > > > javax.servlet-javax.servlet-api-3.1.0.jar
> > > > >
> > > > > Bookkeeper-server notice doesn't cover:
> > > > > com.google.code.findbugs-jsr305-3.0.2.jar
> > > > > com.google.errorprone-error_prone_annotations-2.1.2.jar
> > > > > javax.servlet-javax.servlet-api-3.1.0.jar
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't use the lists above as a basis to fix though. Whoever is
> > > > > updating should doublecheck that the NOTICE files cover everything
> in
> > > > > lib. We're going to need a different NOTICE for bookkeeper-server
> and
> > > > > bookkeeper-all also. It's probably worth getting maven to try and
> > > > > generate these files for us.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Otherwise everything looks good.
> > > > > 1. checksums and signature checked out
> > > > > 2. findbugs, rat, and tests ran cleanly
> > > > > 3. Jepsen tests passed
> > > > >
> > > > > The other thing that's needed for the next RC is that the breaks in
> > > > > the API (around thrown exceptions), need to be noted clearly and
> > > > > loudly in the release notes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Ivan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > Thanks a lot Enrico for the verification, especially for the
> notes.
> > > > Would
> > > > > > you please also help open some issues on github to track your
> > > findings
> > > > > and
> > > > > > suggestions?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Enrico Olivelli <
> > > eolivelli@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> +1 (non binding)
> > > > > >> looks good to me
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> - Built and tested candidate source tar ball
> > > > > >> - Run Bookie and basic Bookie shel commands from the "dist all"
> > > > package
> > > > > >> - Checked tag on GitHub
> > > > > >> - All tests are passing on my downstream projects (some of them
> > need
> > > > > >> re-compiling or minor changes)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thank you Jia for driving this and to every body, I expect great
> > > > > >> improvements in production
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Notes:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 1) There is a failing test on my dev machine, even on master. I
> > > think
> > > > > this
> > > > > >> is not blocker for the release. It must be some problem on my
> > > machine:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(org.apache.
> > > > > >> bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest)
> > > > > >> Time elapsed: 12.871 sec <<< FAILURE!
> > > > > >> java.lang.AssertionError: Bookie should be up and running
> > > > > >> at
> > > > > >> org.apache.bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest.
> > > > > >> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(
> > > > > >> BookieInitializationTest.java:602)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 2) NOTICE reports very old copyright note (dates to 2015) -> we
> > > should
> > > > > >> check this on every file, not just this one, it is not a
> problem I
> > > > think
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 3) EnsemblePlacementPolicy changed signatures of methods ->
> > compile
> > > > time
> > > > > >> issue on downstream projects, I already knew, not a problem. I
> > will
> > > > not
> > > > > >> create any issue.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 4) BookKeeper.Builder#build -> now throws BKException -> compile
> > > time
> > > > > issue
> > > > > >> on downstream projects, but it is not a showstopper. I wlil not
> > > create
> > > > > any
> > > > > >> issue. This was expected.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 5) Dropped dependency on commons collections -> so this
> > disappeared
> > > > from
> > > > > >> downstream projects -> it is not a real problem, downstream
> > project
> > > > must
> > > > > >> explicitly declare their own dependencies, it is not a BK
> problem.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 6) We have better "BKException#getMessage", this has some impact
> > on
> > > > test
> > > > > >> cases of downstream projects -> it is not a problem, I consider
> > > this a
> > > > > bug
> > > > > >> on downstream projects, testcases should be more robust as BK
> > > provides
> > > > > >> typed Exceptions
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Enrico
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 2017-12-05 6:19 GMT+01:00 Jia Zhai <zh...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Hi everyone,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the
> > version
> > > > > >> > 4.6.0, as follows:
> > > > > >> > [ ] +1, Approve the release
> > > > > >> > [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
> > > > comments)
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which
> > > > > includes:
> > > > > >> > * Release notes [1]
> > > > > >> > * The official Apache source and binary distributions to be
> > > deployed
> > > > > >> > to dist.apache.org [2]
> > > > > >> > * All artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
> > [3]
> > > > > >> > * Source code tag "release-4.6.0" [4]
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > BookKeeper's KEYS file contains PGP keys we used to sign this
> > > > > >> > release:https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/
> > > bookkeeper/KEYS
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Please download these packages and review this release
> > candidate:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > - Review release notes
> > > > > >> > - Download the source package (verify md5, shasum, and asc)
> and
> > > > follow
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > instructions to build and run the bookkeeper service.
> > > > > >> > - Download the binary package (verify md5, shasum, and asc)
> and
> > > > follow
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > instructions to run the bookkeeper service.
> > > > > >> > - Review maven repo, release tag, licenses, and any other
> things
> > > you
> > > > > >> think
> > > > > >> > it is important to a release.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
> > > > majority
> > > > > >> > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > >> > Jia Zhai
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > [1] *https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759
> > > > > >> > <https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759>*
> > > > > >> > [2] *https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/
> > > > > >> > bookkeeper-4.6.0-rc0/
> > > > > >> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/bookkeepe
> > > > > r-4.6.0-rc0/
> > > > > >> >*
> > > > > >> > [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> > > > > >> > orgapachebookkeeper-1021/
> > > > > >> > [4] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/tree/release-4.6.0
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache BookKeeper Release 4.6.0, release candidate #0
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Dec 7, 2017 3:35 AM, "Ivan Kelly" <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
b) We don't need a separate NOTICE/LICENSE file for binary package, it
> should be same for both src and binary distribution.
>
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary
I think for binary, you need to have stuff in the notice file. The
licensing how-to is mostly concerned with bundled source, which has the
license in the file anyhow. Binary is different so should be treated
separately.
According to the link you put here, it is not enforced. I think the
projects that I point out don't differentiate NOTICE files in src and
binary distribution. There is only one NOTICE used by both packages.
Only have phone until Monday, so won't be able to confirm til then, but
there a legal/licensing mailing list that helps with this kind of thing.
I can ask in the legal mailing list to confirm.
-Ivan
> Sent a PR for this proposed change:
> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/820
>
> - Sijie
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Probably not. Findbugs isn't needed for sure. Some others look like code
> > generation. The binary packages need separate notices though, as they
> > schools only contain what they're legally obliged to.
> >
> > On Wed 6 Dec 2017, 18:10 Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I did the original notice file update, I will update. Some of these
> > > dependencies might not be needed actually.
> > >
> > > - Sijie
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > -1 from me unfortunately.
> > > >
> > > > There are a lot of files in lib/ the bookkeeper-all which aren't
> > > > covered in the notice:
> > > > com.google.code.findbugs-jsr305-3.0.2.jar
> > > > com.google.errorprone-error_prone_annotations-2.1.2.jar
> > > > com.twitter-jsr166e-1.0.0.jar
> > > > com.twitter-libthrift-0.5.0-7.jar
> > > > com.twitter-libthrift-0.5.0-7.jar
> > > > com.twitter-scrooge-core_2.11-4.16.0.jar
> > > > com.twitter-twitter-server_2.11-1.29.0.jar
> > > > javax.inject-javax.inject-1.jar
> > > > javax.servlet-javax.servlet-api-3.1.0.jar
> > > >
> > > > Bookkeeper-server notice doesn't cover:
> > > > com.google.code.findbugs-jsr305-3.0.2.jar
> > > > com.google.errorprone-error_prone_annotations-2.1.2.jar
> > > > javax.servlet-javax.servlet-api-3.1.0.jar
> > > >
> > > > Don't use the lists above as a basis to fix though. Whoever is
> > > > updating should doublecheck that the NOTICE files cover everything
in
> > > > lib. We're going to need a different NOTICE for bookkeeper-server
and
> > > > bookkeeper-all also. It's probably worth getting maven to try and
> > > > generate these files for us.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Otherwise everything looks good.
> > > > 1. checksums and signature checked out
> > > > 2. findbugs, rat, and tests ran cleanly
> > > > 3. Jepsen tests passed
> > > >
> > > > The other thing that's needed for the next RC is that the breaks in
> > > > the API (around thrown exceptions), need to be noted clearly and
> > > > loudly in the release notes.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Ivan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > Thanks a lot Enrico for the verification, especially for the
notes.
> > > Would
> > > > > you please also help open some issues on github to track your
> > findings
> > > > and
> > > > > suggestions?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Enrico Olivelli <
> > eolivelli@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> +1 (non binding)
> > > > >> looks good to me
> > > > >>
> > > > >> - Built and tested candidate source tar ball
> > > > >> - Run Bookie and basic Bookie shel commands from the "dist all"
> > > package
> > > > >> - Checked tag on GitHub
> > > > >> - All tests are passing on my downstream projects (some of them
> need
> > > > >> re-compiling or minor changes)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thank you Jia for driving this and to every body, I expect great
> > > > >> improvements in production
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Notes:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 1) There is a failing test on my dev machine, even on master. I
> > think
> > > > this
> > > > >> is not blocker for the release. It must be some problem on my
> > machine:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(org.apache.
> > > > >> bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest)
> > > > >> Time elapsed: 12.871 sec <<< FAILURE!
> > > > >> java.lang.AssertionError: Bookie should be up and running
> > > > >> at
> > > > >> org.apache.bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest.
> > > > >> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(
> > > > >> BookieInitializationTest.java:602)
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 2) NOTICE reports very old copyright note (dates to 2015) -> we
> > should
> > > > >> check this on every file, not just this one, it is not a problem
I
> > > think
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 3) EnsemblePlacementPolicy changed signatures of methods ->
> compile
> > > time
> > > > >> issue on downstream projects, I already knew, not a problem. I
> will
> > > not
> > > > >> create any issue.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 4) BookKeeper.Builder#build -> now throws BKException -> compile
> > time
> > > > issue
> > > > >> on downstream projects, but it is not a showstopper. I wlil not
> > create
> > > > any
> > > > >> issue. This was expected.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 5) Dropped dependency on commons collections -> so this
> disappeared
> > > from
> > > > >> downstream projects -> it is not a real problem, downstream
> project
> > > must
> > > > >> explicitly declare their own dependencies, it is not a BK
problem.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 6) We have better "BKException#getMessage", this has some impact
> on
> > > test
> > > > >> cases of downstream projects -> it is not a problem, I consider
> > this a
> > > > bug
> > > > >> on downstream projects, testcases should be more robust as BK
> > provides
> > > > >> typed Exceptions
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Enrico
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 2017-12-05 6:19 GMT+01:00 Jia Zhai <zh...@apache.org>:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Hi everyone,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the
> version
> > > > >> > 4.6.0, as follows:
> > > > >> > [ ] +1, Approve the release
> > > > >> > [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
> > > comments)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which
> > > > includes:
> > > > >> > * Release notes [1]
> > > > >> > * The official Apache source and binary distributions to be
> > deployed
> > > > >> > to dist.apache.org [2]
> > > > >> > * All artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
> [3]
> > > > >> > * Source code tag "release-4.6.0" [4]
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > BookKeeper's KEYS file contains PGP keys we used to sign this
> > > > >> > release:https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/
> > bookkeeper/KEYS
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Please download these packages and review this release
> candidate:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > - Review release notes
> > > > >> > - Download the source package (verify md5, shasum, and asc) and
> > > follow
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > instructions to build and run the bookkeeper service.
> > > > >> > - Download the binary package (verify md5, shasum, and asc) and
> > > follow
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > instructions to run the bookkeeper service.
> > > > >> > - Review maven repo, release tag, licenses, and any other
things
> > you
> > > > >> think
> > > > >> > it is important to a release.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
> > > majority
> > > > >> > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> > Jia Zhai
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > [1] *https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759
> > > > >> > <https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759>*
> > > > >> > [2] *https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/
> > > > >> > bookkeeper-4.6.0-rc0/
> > > > >> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/bookkeepe
> > > > r-4.6.0-rc0/
> > > > >> >*
> > > > >> > [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> > > > >> > orgapachebookkeeper-1021/
> > > > >> > [4] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/tree/release-4.6.0
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache BookKeeper Release 4.6.0, release candidate #0
Posted by Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org>.
b) We don't need a separate NOTICE/LICENSE file for binary package, it
> should be same for both src and binary distribution.
>
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary
I think for binary, you need to have stuff in the notice file. The
licensing how-to is mostly concerned with bundled source, which has the
license in the file anyhow. Binary is different so should be treated
separately.
Only have phone until Monday, so won't be able to confirm til then, but
there a legal/licensing mailing list that helps with this kind of thing.
-Ivan
> Sent a PR for this proposed change:
> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/820
>
> - Sijie
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Probably not. Findbugs isn't needed for sure. Some others look like code
> > generation. The binary packages need separate notices though, as they
> > schools only contain what they're legally obliged to.
> >
> > On Wed 6 Dec 2017, 18:10 Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I did the original notice file update, I will update. Some of these
> > > dependencies might not be needed actually.
> > >
> > > - Sijie
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > -1 from me unfortunately.
> > > >
> > > > There are a lot of files in lib/ the bookkeeper-all which aren't
> > > > covered in the notice:
> > > > com.google.code.findbugs-jsr305-3.0.2.jar
> > > > com.google.errorprone-error_prone_annotations-2.1.2.jar
> > > > com.twitter-jsr166e-1.0.0.jar
> > > > com.twitter-libthrift-0.5.0-7.jar
> > > > com.twitter-libthrift-0.5.0-7.jar
> > > > com.twitter-scrooge-core_2.11-4.16.0.jar
> > > > com.twitter-twitter-server_2.11-1.29.0.jar
> > > > javax.inject-javax.inject-1.jar
> > > > javax.servlet-javax.servlet-api-3.1.0.jar
> > > >
> > > > Bookkeeper-server notice doesn't cover:
> > > > com.google.code.findbugs-jsr305-3.0.2.jar
> > > > com.google.errorprone-error_prone_annotations-2.1.2.jar
> > > > javax.servlet-javax.servlet-api-3.1.0.jar
> > > >
> > > > Don't use the lists above as a basis to fix though. Whoever is
> > > > updating should doublecheck that the NOTICE files cover everything in
> > > > lib. We're going to need a different NOTICE for bookkeeper-server and
> > > > bookkeeper-all also. It's probably worth getting maven to try and
> > > > generate these files for us.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Otherwise everything looks good.
> > > > 1. checksums and signature checked out
> > > > 2. findbugs, rat, and tests ran cleanly
> > > > 3. Jepsen tests passed
> > > >
> > > > The other thing that's needed for the next RC is that the breaks in
> > > > the API (around thrown exceptions), need to be noted clearly and
> > > > loudly in the release notes.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Ivan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > Thanks a lot Enrico for the verification, especially for the notes.
> > > Would
> > > > > you please also help open some issues on github to track your
> > findings
> > > > and
> > > > > suggestions?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Enrico Olivelli <
> > eolivelli@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> +1 (non binding)
> > > > >> looks good to me
> > > > >>
> > > > >> - Built and tested candidate source tar ball
> > > > >> - Run Bookie and basic Bookie shel commands from the "dist all"
> > > package
> > > > >> - Checked tag on GitHub
> > > > >> - All tests are passing on my downstream projects (some of them
> need
> > > > >> re-compiling or minor changes)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thank you Jia for driving this and to every body, I expect great
> > > > >> improvements in production
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Notes:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 1) There is a failing test on my dev machine, even on master. I
> > think
> > > > this
> > > > >> is not blocker for the release. It must be some problem on my
> > machine:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(org.apache.
> > > > >> bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest)
> > > > >> Time elapsed: 12.871 sec <<< FAILURE!
> > > > >> java.lang.AssertionError: Bookie should be up and running
> > > > >> at
> > > > >> org.apache.bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest.
> > > > >> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(
> > > > >> BookieInitializationTest.java:602)
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 2) NOTICE reports very old copyright note (dates to 2015) -> we
> > should
> > > > >> check this on every file, not just this one, it is not a problem I
> > > think
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 3) EnsemblePlacementPolicy changed signatures of methods ->
> compile
> > > time
> > > > >> issue on downstream projects, I already knew, not a problem. I
> will
> > > not
> > > > >> create any issue.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 4) BookKeeper.Builder#build -> now throws BKException -> compile
> > time
> > > > issue
> > > > >> on downstream projects, but it is not a showstopper. I wlil not
> > create
> > > > any
> > > > >> issue. This was expected.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 5) Dropped dependency on commons collections -> so this
> disappeared
> > > from
> > > > >> downstream projects -> it is not a real problem, downstream
> project
> > > must
> > > > >> explicitly declare their own dependencies, it is not a BK problem.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 6) We have better "BKException#getMessage", this has some impact
> on
> > > test
> > > > >> cases of downstream projects -> it is not a problem, I consider
> > this a
> > > > bug
> > > > >> on downstream projects, testcases should be more robust as BK
> > provides
> > > > >> typed Exceptions
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Enrico
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 2017-12-05 6:19 GMT+01:00 Jia Zhai <zh...@apache.org>:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Hi everyone,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the
> version
> > > > >> > 4.6.0, as follows:
> > > > >> > [ ] +1, Approve the release
> > > > >> > [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
> > > comments)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which
> > > > includes:
> > > > >> > * Release notes [1]
> > > > >> > * The official Apache source and binary distributions to be
> > deployed
> > > > >> > to dist.apache.org [2]
> > > > >> > * All artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
> [3]
> > > > >> > * Source code tag "release-4.6.0" [4]
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > BookKeeper's KEYS file contains PGP keys we used to sign this
> > > > >> > release:https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/
> > bookkeeper/KEYS
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Please download these packages and review this release
> candidate:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > - Review release notes
> > > > >> > - Download the source package (verify md5, shasum, and asc) and
> > > follow
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > instructions to build and run the bookkeeper service.
> > > > >> > - Download the binary package (verify md5, shasum, and asc) and
> > > follow
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > instructions to run the bookkeeper service.
> > > > >> > - Review maven repo, release tag, licenses, and any other things
> > you
> > > > >> think
> > > > >> > it is important to a release.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
> > > majority
> > > > >> > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> > Jia Zhai
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > [1] *https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759
> > > > >> > <https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759>*
> > > > >> > [2] *https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/
> > > > >> > bookkeeper-4.6.0-rc0/
> > > > >> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/bookkeepe
> > > > r-4.6.0-rc0/
> > > > >> >*
> > > > >> > [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> > > > >> > orgapachebookkeeper-1021/
> > > > >> > [4] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/tree/release-4.6.0
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache BookKeeper Release 4.6.0, release candidate #0
Posted by Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Sijie for the work. +1 for it.
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Il mer 6 dic 2017, 22:15 Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> > After checking how the other ASF projects shipping NOTICE and LICENSE
> files
> > in the package,
> >
> > Examples:
> >
> > Flink: https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/NOTICE
> > https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/LICENSE
> > Kafka: https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/trunk/NOTICE
> > https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/trunk/LICENSE
> > DL: https://github.com/apache/distributedlog/blob/master/NOTICE
> >
> > and reading through all the ASF documents,
> >
> > 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
> > 2. http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
>
>
> This part is interesting:
>
> It is important to keep NOTICE as brief and simple as possible, as each
> addition places a burden on downstream consumers.
>
> Do not add anything to NOTICE which is not legally required.
>
> >
> > 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
> >
> >
> > I am proposing:
> >
> > a) remove the dependencies in the NOTICE and LICENSE, to make things
> easier
> > to manage. It is sufficient to keep NOTICE as simple as possible and
> > listing only need-to-callout licenses in LICENSE file.
> > b) We don't need a separate NOTICE/LICENSE file for binary package, it
> > should be same for both src and binary distribution.
> >
> > Sent a PR for this proposed change:
> > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/820
>
>
> Will take a look.
> As I wrote on slack I will try to send an example of using the license
> plugin to check automatically licenses of dependencies and create a list.
> This will make it easier to check that we don't check in forbidden licenses
>
> +1 to your proposal (non binding)
>
> Enrico
>
> >
> >
> > - Sijie
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Probably not. Findbugs isn't needed for sure. Some others look like
> code
> > > generation. The binary packages need separate notices though, as they
> > > schools only contain what they're legally obliged to.
> > >
> > > On Wed 6 Dec 2017, 18:10 Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I did the original notice file update, I will update. Some of these
> > > > dependencies might not be needed actually.
> > > >
> > > > - Sijie
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > -1 from me unfortunately.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are a lot of files in lib/ the bookkeeper-all which aren't
> > > > > covered in the notice:
> > > > > com.google.code.findbugs-jsr305-3.0.2.jar
> > > > > com.google.errorprone-error_prone_annotations-2.1.2.jar
> > > > > com.twitter-jsr166e-1.0.0.jar
> > > > > com.twitter-libthrift-0.5.0-7.jar
> > > > > com.twitter-libthrift-0.5.0-7.jar
> > > > > com.twitter-scrooge-core_2.11-4.16.0.jar
> > > > > com.twitter-twitter-server_2.11-1.29.0.jar
> > > > > javax.inject-javax.inject-1.jar
> > > > > javax.servlet-javax.servlet-api-3.1.0.jar
> > > > >
> > > > > Bookkeeper-server notice doesn't cover:
> > > > > com.google.code.findbugs-jsr305-3.0.2.jar
> > > > > com.google.errorprone-error_prone_annotations-2.1.2.jar
> > > > > javax.servlet-javax.servlet-api-3.1.0.jar
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't use the lists above as a basis to fix though. Whoever is
> > > > > updating should doublecheck that the NOTICE files cover everything
> in
> > > > > lib. We're going to need a different NOTICE for bookkeeper-server
> and
> > > > > bookkeeper-all also. It's probably worth getting maven to try and
> > > > > generate these files for us.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Otherwise everything looks good.
> > > > > 1. checksums and signature checked out
> > > > > 2. findbugs, rat, and tests ran cleanly
> > > > > 3. Jepsen tests passed
> > > > >
> > > > > The other thing that's needed for the next RC is that the breaks in
> > > > > the API (around thrown exceptions), need to be noted clearly and
> > > > > loudly in the release notes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Ivan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > Thanks a lot Enrico for the verification, especially for the
> notes.
> > > > Would
> > > > > > you please also help open some issues on github to track your
> > > findings
> > > > > and
> > > > > > suggestions?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Enrico Olivelli <
> > > eolivelli@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> +1 (non binding)
> > > > > >> looks good to me
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> - Built and tested candidate source tar ball
> > > > > >> - Run Bookie and basic Bookie shel commands from the "dist all"
> > > > package
> > > > > >> - Checked tag on GitHub
> > > > > >> - All tests are passing on my downstream projects (some of them
> > need
> > > > > >> re-compiling or minor changes)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thank you Jia for driving this and to every body, I expect great
> > > > > >> improvements in production
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Notes:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 1) There is a failing test on my dev machine, even on master. I
> > > think
> > > > > this
> > > > > >> is not blocker for the release. It must be some problem on my
> > > machine:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(org.apache.
> > > > > >> bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest)
> > > > > >> Time elapsed: 12.871 sec <<< FAILURE!
> > > > > >> java.lang.AssertionError: Bookie should be up and running
> > > > > >> at
> > > > > >> org.apache.bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest.
> > > > > >> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(
> > > > > >> BookieInitializationTest.java:602)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 2) NOTICE reports very old copyright note (dates to 2015) -> we
> > > should
> > > > > >> check this on every file, not just this one, it is not a
> problem I
> > > > think
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 3) EnsemblePlacementPolicy changed signatures of methods ->
> > compile
> > > > time
> > > > > >> issue on downstream projects, I already knew, not a problem. I
> > will
> > > > not
> > > > > >> create any issue.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 4) BookKeeper.Builder#build -> now throws BKException -> compile
> > > time
> > > > > issue
> > > > > >> on downstream projects, but it is not a showstopper. I wlil not
> > > create
> > > > > any
> > > > > >> issue. This was expected.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 5) Dropped dependency on commons collections -> so this
> > disappeared
> > > > from
> > > > > >> downstream projects -> it is not a real problem, downstream
> > project
> > > > must
> > > > > >> explicitly declare their own dependencies, it is not a BK
> problem.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 6) We have better "BKException#getMessage", this has some impact
> > on
> > > > test
> > > > > >> cases of downstream projects -> it is not a problem, I consider
> > > this a
> > > > > bug
> > > > > >> on downstream projects, testcases should be more robust as BK
> > > provides
> > > > > >> typed Exceptions
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Enrico
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 2017-12-05 6:19 GMT+01:00 Jia Zhai <zh...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Hi everyone,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the
> > version
> > > > > >> > 4.6.0, as follows:
> > > > > >> > [ ] +1, Approve the release
> > > > > >> > [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
> > > > comments)
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which
> > > > > includes:
> > > > > >> > * Release notes [1]
> > > > > >> > * The official Apache source and binary distributions to be
> > > deployed
> > > > > >> > to dist.apache.org [2]
> > > > > >> > * All artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
> > [3]
> > > > > >> > * Source code tag "release-4.6.0" [4]
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > BookKeeper's KEYS file contains PGP keys we used to sign this
> > > > > >> > release:https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/
> > > bookkeeper/KEYS
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Please download these packages and review this release
> > candidate:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > - Review release notes
> > > > > >> > - Download the source package (verify md5, shasum, and asc)
> and
> > > > follow
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > instructions to build and run the bookkeeper service.
> > > > > >> > - Download the binary package (verify md5, shasum, and asc)
> and
> > > > follow
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > instructions to run the bookkeeper service.
> > > > > >> > - Review maven repo, release tag, licenses, and any other
> things
> > > you
> > > > > >> think
> > > > > >> > it is important to a release.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
> > > > majority
> > > > > >> > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > >> > Jia Zhai
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > [1] *https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759
> > > > > >> > <https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759>*
> > > > > >> > [2] *https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/
> > > > > >> > bookkeeper-4.6.0-rc0/
> > > > > >> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/bookkeepe
> > > > > r-4.6.0-rc0/
> > > > > >> >*
> > > > > >> > [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> > > > > >> > orgapachebookkeeper-1021/
> > > > > >> > [4] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/tree/release-4.6.0
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --
>
>
> -- Enrico Olivelli
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache BookKeeper Release 4.6.0, release candidate #0
Posted by Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>.
Il mer 6 dic 2017, 22:15 Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> After checking how the other ASF projects shipping NOTICE and LICENSE files
> in the package,
>
> Examples:
>
> Flink: https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/NOTICE
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/LICENSE
> Kafka: https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/trunk/NOTICE
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/trunk/LICENSE
> DL: https://github.com/apache/distributedlog/blob/master/NOTICE
>
> and reading through all the ASF documents,
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
> 2. http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
This part is interesting:
It is important to keep NOTICE as brief and simple as possible, as each
addition places a burden on downstream consumers.
Do not add anything to NOTICE which is not legally required.
>
> 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
>
>
> I am proposing:
>
> a) remove the dependencies in the NOTICE and LICENSE, to make things easier
> to manage. It is sufficient to keep NOTICE as simple as possible and
> listing only need-to-callout licenses in LICENSE file.
> b) We don't need a separate NOTICE/LICENSE file for binary package, it
> should be same for both src and binary distribution.
>
> Sent a PR for this proposed change:
> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/820
Will take a look.
As I wrote on slack I will try to send an example of using the license
plugin to check automatically licenses of dependencies and create a list.
This will make it easier to check that we don't check in forbidden licenses
+1 to your proposal (non binding)
Enrico
>
>
> - Sijie
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Probably not. Findbugs isn't needed for sure. Some others look like code
> > generation. The binary packages need separate notices though, as they
> > schools only contain what they're legally obliged to.
> >
> > On Wed 6 Dec 2017, 18:10 Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I did the original notice file update, I will update. Some of these
> > > dependencies might not be needed actually.
> > >
> > > - Sijie
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > -1 from me unfortunately.
> > > >
> > > > There are a lot of files in lib/ the bookkeeper-all which aren't
> > > > covered in the notice:
> > > > com.google.code.findbugs-jsr305-3.0.2.jar
> > > > com.google.errorprone-error_prone_annotations-2.1.2.jar
> > > > com.twitter-jsr166e-1.0.0.jar
> > > > com.twitter-libthrift-0.5.0-7.jar
> > > > com.twitter-libthrift-0.5.0-7.jar
> > > > com.twitter-scrooge-core_2.11-4.16.0.jar
> > > > com.twitter-twitter-server_2.11-1.29.0.jar
> > > > javax.inject-javax.inject-1.jar
> > > > javax.servlet-javax.servlet-api-3.1.0.jar
> > > >
> > > > Bookkeeper-server notice doesn't cover:
> > > > com.google.code.findbugs-jsr305-3.0.2.jar
> > > > com.google.errorprone-error_prone_annotations-2.1.2.jar
> > > > javax.servlet-javax.servlet-api-3.1.0.jar
> > > >
> > > > Don't use the lists above as a basis to fix though. Whoever is
> > > > updating should doublecheck that the NOTICE files cover everything in
> > > > lib. We're going to need a different NOTICE for bookkeeper-server and
> > > > bookkeeper-all also. It's probably worth getting maven to try and
> > > > generate these files for us.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Otherwise everything looks good.
> > > > 1. checksums and signature checked out
> > > > 2. findbugs, rat, and tests ran cleanly
> > > > 3. Jepsen tests passed
> > > >
> > > > The other thing that's needed for the next RC is that the breaks in
> > > > the API (around thrown exceptions), need to be noted clearly and
> > > > loudly in the release notes.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Ivan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > Thanks a lot Enrico for the verification, especially for the notes.
> > > Would
> > > > > you please also help open some issues on github to track your
> > findings
> > > > and
> > > > > suggestions?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Enrico Olivelli <
> > eolivelli@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> +1 (non binding)
> > > > >> looks good to me
> > > > >>
> > > > >> - Built and tested candidate source tar ball
> > > > >> - Run Bookie and basic Bookie shel commands from the "dist all"
> > > package
> > > > >> - Checked tag on GitHub
> > > > >> - All tests are passing on my downstream projects (some of them
> need
> > > > >> re-compiling or minor changes)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thank you Jia for driving this and to every body, I expect great
> > > > >> improvements in production
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Notes:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 1) There is a failing test on my dev machine, even on master. I
> > think
> > > > this
> > > > >> is not blocker for the release. It must be some problem on my
> > machine:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(org.apache.
> > > > >> bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest)
> > > > >> Time elapsed: 12.871 sec <<< FAILURE!
> > > > >> java.lang.AssertionError: Bookie should be up and running
> > > > >> at
> > > > >> org.apache.bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest.
> > > > >> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(
> > > > >> BookieInitializationTest.java:602)
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 2) NOTICE reports very old copyright note (dates to 2015) -> we
> > should
> > > > >> check this on every file, not just this one, it is not a problem I
> > > think
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 3) EnsemblePlacementPolicy changed signatures of methods ->
> compile
> > > time
> > > > >> issue on downstream projects, I already knew, not a problem. I
> will
> > > not
> > > > >> create any issue.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 4) BookKeeper.Builder#build -> now throws BKException -> compile
> > time
> > > > issue
> > > > >> on downstream projects, but it is not a showstopper. I wlil not
> > create
> > > > any
> > > > >> issue. This was expected.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 5) Dropped dependency on commons collections -> so this
> disappeared
> > > from
> > > > >> downstream projects -> it is not a real problem, downstream
> project
> > > must
> > > > >> explicitly declare their own dependencies, it is not a BK problem.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 6) We have better "BKException#getMessage", this has some impact
> on
> > > test
> > > > >> cases of downstream projects -> it is not a problem, I consider
> > this a
> > > > bug
> > > > >> on downstream projects, testcases should be more robust as BK
> > provides
> > > > >> typed Exceptions
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Enrico
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 2017-12-05 6:19 GMT+01:00 Jia Zhai <zh...@apache.org>:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Hi everyone,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the
> version
> > > > >> > 4.6.0, as follows:
> > > > >> > [ ] +1, Approve the release
> > > > >> > [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
> > > comments)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which
> > > > includes:
> > > > >> > * Release notes [1]
> > > > >> > * The official Apache source and binary distributions to be
> > deployed
> > > > >> > to dist.apache.org [2]
> > > > >> > * All artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
> [3]
> > > > >> > * Source code tag "release-4.6.0" [4]
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > BookKeeper's KEYS file contains PGP keys we used to sign this
> > > > >> > release:https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/
> > bookkeeper/KEYS
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Please download these packages and review this release
> candidate:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > - Review release notes
> > > > >> > - Download the source package (verify md5, shasum, and asc) and
> > > follow
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > instructions to build and run the bookkeeper service.
> > > > >> > - Download the binary package (verify md5, shasum, and asc) and
> > > follow
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > instructions to run the bookkeeper service.
> > > > >> > - Review maven repo, release tag, licenses, and any other things
> > you
> > > > >> think
> > > > >> > it is important to a release.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
> > > majority
> > > > >> > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> > Jia Zhai
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > [1] *https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759
> > > > >> > <https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759>*
> > > > >> > [2] *https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/
> > > > >> > bookkeeper-4.6.0-rc0/
> > > > >> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/bookkeepe
> > > > r-4.6.0-rc0/
> > > > >> >*
> > > > >> > [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> > > > >> > orgapachebookkeeper-1021/
> > > > >> > [4] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/tree/release-4.6.0
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
-- Enrico Olivelli
Re: [VOTE] Apache BookKeeper Release 4.6.0, release candidate #0
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
After checking how the other ASF projects shipping NOTICE and LICENSE files
in the package,
Examples:
Flink: https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/NOTICE
https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/LICENSE
Kafka: https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/trunk/NOTICE
https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/trunk/LICENSE
DL: https://github.com/apache/distributedlog/blob/master/NOTICE
and reading through all the ASF documents,
1. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
2. http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
I am proposing:
a) remove the dependencies in the NOTICE and LICENSE, to make things easier
to manage. It is sufficient to keep NOTICE as simple as possible and
listing only need-to-callout licenses in LICENSE file.
b) We don't need a separate NOTICE/LICENSE file for binary package, it
should be same for both src and binary distribution.
Sent a PR for this proposed change:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/820
- Sijie
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
> Probably not. Findbugs isn't needed for sure. Some others look like code
> generation. The binary packages need separate notices though, as they
> schools only contain what they're legally obliged to.
>
> On Wed 6 Dec 2017, 18:10 Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I did the original notice file update, I will update. Some of these
> > dependencies might not be needed actually.
> >
> > - Sijie
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > -1 from me unfortunately.
> > >
> > > There are a lot of files in lib/ the bookkeeper-all which aren't
> > > covered in the notice:
> > > com.google.code.findbugs-jsr305-3.0.2.jar
> > > com.google.errorprone-error_prone_annotations-2.1.2.jar
> > > com.twitter-jsr166e-1.0.0.jar
> > > com.twitter-libthrift-0.5.0-7.jar
> > > com.twitter-libthrift-0.5.0-7.jar
> > > com.twitter-scrooge-core_2.11-4.16.0.jar
> > > com.twitter-twitter-server_2.11-1.29.0.jar
> > > javax.inject-javax.inject-1.jar
> > > javax.servlet-javax.servlet-api-3.1.0.jar
> > >
> > > Bookkeeper-server notice doesn't cover:
> > > com.google.code.findbugs-jsr305-3.0.2.jar
> > > com.google.errorprone-error_prone_annotations-2.1.2.jar
> > > javax.servlet-javax.servlet-api-3.1.0.jar
> > >
> > > Don't use the lists above as a basis to fix though. Whoever is
> > > updating should doublecheck that the NOTICE files cover everything in
> > > lib. We're going to need a different NOTICE for bookkeeper-server and
> > > bookkeeper-all also. It's probably worth getting maven to try and
> > > generate these files for us.
> >
> >
> > > Otherwise everything looks good.
> > > 1. checksums and signature checked out
> > > 2. findbugs, rat, and tests ran cleanly
> > > 3. Jepsen tests passed
> > >
> > > The other thing that's needed for the next RC is that the breaks in
> > > the API (around thrown exceptions), need to be noted clearly and
> > > loudly in the release notes.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Ivan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Thanks a lot Enrico for the verification, especially for the notes.
> > Would
> > > > you please also help open some issues on github to track your
> findings
> > > and
> > > > suggestions?
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Enrico Olivelli <
> eolivelli@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> +1 (non binding)
> > > >> looks good to me
> > > >>
> > > >> - Built and tested candidate source tar ball
> > > >> - Run Bookie and basic Bookie shel commands from the "dist all"
> > package
> > > >> - Checked tag on GitHub
> > > >> - All tests are passing on my downstream projects (some of them need
> > > >> re-compiling or minor changes)
> > > >>
> > > >> Thank you Jia for driving this and to every body, I expect great
> > > >> improvements in production
> > > >>
> > > >> Notes:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1) There is a failing test on my dev machine, even on master. I
> think
> > > this
> > > >> is not blocker for the release. It must be some problem on my
> machine:
> > > >>
> > > >> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(org.apache.
> > > >> bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest)
> > > >> Time elapsed: 12.871 sec <<< FAILURE!
> > > >> java.lang.AssertionError: Bookie should be up and running
> > > >> at
> > > >> org.apache.bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest.
> > > >> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(
> > > >> BookieInitializationTest.java:602)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> 2) NOTICE reports very old copyright note (dates to 2015) -> we
> should
> > > >> check this on every file, not just this one, it is not a problem I
> > think
> > > >>
> > > >> 3) EnsemblePlacementPolicy changed signatures of methods -> compile
> > time
> > > >> issue on downstream projects, I already knew, not a problem. I will
> > not
> > > >> create any issue.
> > > >>
> > > >> 4) BookKeeper.Builder#build -> now throws BKException -> compile
> time
> > > issue
> > > >> on downstream projects, but it is not a showstopper. I wlil not
> create
> > > any
> > > >> issue. This was expected.
> > > >>
> > > >> 5) Dropped dependency on commons collections -> so this disappeared
> > from
> > > >> downstream projects -> it is not a real problem, downstream project
> > must
> > > >> explicitly declare their own dependencies, it is not a BK problem.
> > > >>
> > > >> 6) We have better "BKException#getMessage", this has some impact on
> > test
> > > >> cases of downstream projects -> it is not a problem, I consider
> this a
> > > bug
> > > >> on downstream projects, testcases should be more robust as BK
> provides
> > > >> typed Exceptions
> > > >>
> > > >> Enrico
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> 2017-12-05 6:19 GMT+01:00 Jia Zhai <zh...@apache.org>:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Hi everyone,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the version
> > > >> > 4.6.0, as follows:
> > > >> > [ ] +1, Approve the release
> > > >> > [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
> > comments)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which
> > > includes:
> > > >> > * Release notes [1]
> > > >> > * The official Apache source and binary distributions to be
> deployed
> > > >> > to dist.apache.org [2]
> > > >> > * All artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3]
> > > >> > * Source code tag "release-4.6.0" [4]
> > > >> >
> > > >> > BookKeeper's KEYS file contains PGP keys we used to sign this
> > > >> > release:https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/
> bookkeeper/KEYS
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Please download these packages and review this release candidate:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > - Review release notes
> > > >> > - Download the source package (verify md5, shasum, and asc) and
> > follow
> > > >> the
> > > >> > instructions to build and run the bookkeeper service.
> > > >> > - Download the binary package (verify md5, shasum, and asc) and
> > follow
> > > >> the
> > > >> > instructions to run the bookkeeper service.
> > > >> > - Review maven repo, release tag, licenses, and any other things
> you
> > > >> think
> > > >> > it is important to a release.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
> > majority
> > > >> > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> > Jia Zhai
> > > >> >
> > > >> > [1] *https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759
> > > >> > <https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759>*
> > > >> > [2] *https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/
> > > >> > bookkeeper-4.6.0-rc0/
> > > >> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/bookkeepe
> > > r-4.6.0-rc0/
> > > >> >*
> > > >> > [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> > > >> > orgapachebookkeeper-1021/
> > > >> > [4] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/tree/release-4.6.0
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache BookKeeper Release 4.6.0, release candidate #0
Posted by Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org>.
Probably not. Findbugs isn't needed for sure. Some others look like code
generation. The binary packages need separate notices though, as they
schools only contain what they're legally obliged to.
On Wed 6 Dec 2017, 18:10 Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I did the original notice file update, I will update. Some of these
> dependencies might not be needed actually.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > -1 from me unfortunately.
> >
> > There are a lot of files in lib/ the bookkeeper-all which aren't
> > covered in the notice:
> > com.google.code.findbugs-jsr305-3.0.2.jar
> > com.google.errorprone-error_prone_annotations-2.1.2.jar
> > com.twitter-jsr166e-1.0.0.jar
> > com.twitter-libthrift-0.5.0-7.jar
> > com.twitter-libthrift-0.5.0-7.jar
> > com.twitter-scrooge-core_2.11-4.16.0.jar
> > com.twitter-twitter-server_2.11-1.29.0.jar
> > javax.inject-javax.inject-1.jar
> > javax.servlet-javax.servlet-api-3.1.0.jar
> >
> > Bookkeeper-server notice doesn't cover:
> > com.google.code.findbugs-jsr305-3.0.2.jar
> > com.google.errorprone-error_prone_annotations-2.1.2.jar
> > javax.servlet-javax.servlet-api-3.1.0.jar
> >
> > Don't use the lists above as a basis to fix though. Whoever is
> > updating should doublecheck that the NOTICE files cover everything in
> > lib. We're going to need a different NOTICE for bookkeeper-server and
> > bookkeeper-all also. It's probably worth getting maven to try and
> > generate these files for us.
>
>
> > Otherwise everything looks good.
> > 1. checksums and signature checked out
> > 2. findbugs, rat, and tests ran cleanly
> > 3. Jepsen tests passed
> >
> > The other thing that's needed for the next RC is that the breaks in
> > the API (around thrown exceptions), need to be noted clearly and
> > loudly in the release notes.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Ivan
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks a lot Enrico for the verification, especially for the notes.
> Would
> > > you please also help open some issues on github to track your findings
> > and
> > > suggestions?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1 (non binding)
> > >> looks good to me
> > >>
> > >> - Built and tested candidate source tar ball
> > >> - Run Bookie and basic Bookie shel commands from the "dist all"
> package
> > >> - Checked tag on GitHub
> > >> - All tests are passing on my downstream projects (some of them need
> > >> re-compiling or minor changes)
> > >>
> > >> Thank you Jia for driving this and to every body, I expect great
> > >> improvements in production
> > >>
> > >> Notes:
> > >>
> > >> 1) There is a failing test on my dev machine, even on master. I think
> > this
> > >> is not blocker for the release. It must be some problem on my machine:
> > >>
> > >> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(org.apache.
> > >> bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest)
> > >> Time elapsed: 12.871 sec <<< FAILURE!
> > >> java.lang.AssertionError: Bookie should be up and running
> > >> at
> > >> org.apache.bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest.
> > >> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(
> > >> BookieInitializationTest.java:602)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2) NOTICE reports very old copyright note (dates to 2015) -> we should
> > >> check this on every file, not just this one, it is not a problem I
> think
> > >>
> > >> 3) EnsemblePlacementPolicy changed signatures of methods -> compile
> time
> > >> issue on downstream projects, I already knew, not a problem. I will
> not
> > >> create any issue.
> > >>
> > >> 4) BookKeeper.Builder#build -> now throws BKException -> compile time
> > issue
> > >> on downstream projects, but it is not a showstopper. I wlil not create
> > any
> > >> issue. This was expected.
> > >>
> > >> 5) Dropped dependency on commons collections -> so this disappeared
> from
> > >> downstream projects -> it is not a real problem, downstream project
> must
> > >> explicitly declare their own dependencies, it is not a BK problem.
> > >>
> > >> 6) We have better "BKException#getMessage", this has some impact on
> test
> > >> cases of downstream projects -> it is not a problem, I consider this a
> > bug
> > >> on downstream projects, testcases should be more robust as BK provides
> > >> typed Exceptions
> > >>
> > >> Enrico
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2017-12-05 6:19 GMT+01:00 Jia Zhai <zh...@apache.org>:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi everyone,
> > >> >
> > >> > Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the version
> > >> > 4.6.0, as follows:
> > >> > [ ] +1, Approve the release
> > >> > [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
> comments)
> > >> >
> > >> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which
> > includes:
> > >> > * Release notes [1]
> > >> > * The official Apache source and binary distributions to be deployed
> > >> > to dist.apache.org [2]
> > >> > * All artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3]
> > >> > * Source code tag "release-4.6.0" [4]
> > >> >
> > >> > BookKeeper's KEYS file contains PGP keys we used to sign this
> > >> > release:https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bookkeeper/KEYS
> > >> >
> > >> > Please download these packages and review this release candidate:
> > >> >
> > >> > - Review release notes
> > >> > - Download the source package (verify md5, shasum, and asc) and
> follow
> > >> the
> > >> > instructions to build and run the bookkeeper service.
> > >> > - Download the binary package (verify md5, shasum, and asc) and
> follow
> > >> the
> > >> > instructions to run the bookkeeper service.
> > >> > - Review maven repo, release tag, licenses, and any other things you
> > >> think
> > >> > it is important to a release.
> > >> >
> > >> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
> majority
> > >> > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > Jia Zhai
> > >> >
> > >> > [1] *https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759
> > >> > <https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759>*
> > >> > [2] *https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/
> > >> > bookkeeper-4.6.0-rc0/
> > >> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/bookkeepe
> > r-4.6.0-rc0/
> > >> >*
> > >> > [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> > >> > orgapachebookkeeper-1021/
> > >> > [4] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/tree/release-4.6.0
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache BookKeeper Release 4.6.0, release candidate #0
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
I did the original notice file update, I will update. Some of these
dependencies might not be needed actually.
- Sijie
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
> -1 from me unfortunately.
>
> There are a lot of files in lib/ the bookkeeper-all which aren't
> covered in the notice:
> com.google.code.findbugs-jsr305-3.0.2.jar
> com.google.errorprone-error_prone_annotations-2.1.2.jar
> com.twitter-jsr166e-1.0.0.jar
> com.twitter-libthrift-0.5.0-7.jar
> com.twitter-libthrift-0.5.0-7.jar
> com.twitter-scrooge-core_2.11-4.16.0.jar
> com.twitter-twitter-server_2.11-1.29.0.jar
> javax.inject-javax.inject-1.jar
> javax.servlet-javax.servlet-api-3.1.0.jar
>
> Bookkeeper-server notice doesn't cover:
> com.google.code.findbugs-jsr305-3.0.2.jar
> com.google.errorprone-error_prone_annotations-2.1.2.jar
> javax.servlet-javax.servlet-api-3.1.0.jar
>
> Don't use the lists above as a basis to fix though. Whoever is
> updating should doublecheck that the NOTICE files cover everything in
> lib. We're going to need a different NOTICE for bookkeeper-server and
> bookkeeper-all also. It's probably worth getting maven to try and
> generate these files for us.
> Otherwise everything looks good.
> 1. checksums and signature checked out
> 2. findbugs, rat, and tests ran cleanly
> 3. Jepsen tests passed
>
> The other thing that's needed for the next RC is that the breaks in
> the API (around thrown exceptions), need to be noted clearly and
> loudly in the release notes.
>
> Best regards,
> Ivan
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks a lot Enrico for the verification, especially for the notes. Would
> > you please also help open some issues on github to track your findings
> and
> > suggestions?
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1 (non binding)
> >> looks good to me
> >>
> >> - Built and tested candidate source tar ball
> >> - Run Bookie and basic Bookie shel commands from the "dist all" package
> >> - Checked tag on GitHub
> >> - All tests are passing on my downstream projects (some of them need
> >> re-compiling or minor changes)
> >>
> >> Thank you Jia for driving this and to every body, I expect great
> >> improvements in production
> >>
> >> Notes:
> >>
> >> 1) There is a failing test on my dev machine, even on master. I think
> this
> >> is not blocker for the release. It must be some problem on my machine:
> >>
> >> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(org.apache.
> >> bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest)
> >> Time elapsed: 12.871 sec <<< FAILURE!
> >> java.lang.AssertionError: Bookie should be up and running
> >> at
> >> org.apache.bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest.
> >> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(
> >> BookieInitializationTest.java:602)
> >>
> >>
> >> 2) NOTICE reports very old copyright note (dates to 2015) -> we should
> >> check this on every file, not just this one, it is not a problem I think
> >>
> >> 3) EnsemblePlacementPolicy changed signatures of methods -> compile time
> >> issue on downstream projects, I already knew, not a problem. I will not
> >> create any issue.
> >>
> >> 4) BookKeeper.Builder#build -> now throws BKException -> compile time
> issue
> >> on downstream projects, but it is not a showstopper. I wlil not create
> any
> >> issue. This was expected.
> >>
> >> 5) Dropped dependency on commons collections -> so this disappeared from
> >> downstream projects -> it is not a real problem, downstream project must
> >> explicitly declare their own dependencies, it is not a BK problem.
> >>
> >> 6) We have better "BKException#getMessage", this has some impact on test
> >> cases of downstream projects -> it is not a problem, I consider this a
> bug
> >> on downstream projects, testcases should be more robust as BK provides
> >> typed Exceptions
> >>
> >> Enrico
> >>
> >>
> >> 2017-12-05 6:19 GMT+01:00 Jia Zhai <zh...@apache.org>:
> >>
> >> > Hi everyone,
> >> >
> >> > Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the version
> >> > 4.6.0, as follows:
> >> > [ ] +1, Approve the release
> >> > [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
> >> >
> >> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which
> includes:
> >> > * Release notes [1]
> >> > * The official Apache source and binary distributions to be deployed
> >> > to dist.apache.org [2]
> >> > * All artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3]
> >> > * Source code tag "release-4.6.0" [4]
> >> >
> >> > BookKeeper's KEYS file contains PGP keys we used to sign this
> >> > release:https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bookkeeper/KEYS
> >> >
> >> > Please download these packages and review this release candidate:
> >> >
> >> > - Review release notes
> >> > - Download the source package (verify md5, shasum, and asc) and follow
> >> the
> >> > instructions to build and run the bookkeeper service.
> >> > - Download the binary package (verify md5, shasum, and asc) and follow
> >> the
> >> > instructions to run the bookkeeper service.
> >> > - Review maven repo, release tag, licenses, and any other things you
> >> think
> >> > it is important to a release.
> >> >
> >> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> >> > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Jia Zhai
> >> >
> >> > [1] *https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759
> >> > <https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759>*
> >> > [2] *https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/
> >> > bookkeeper-4.6.0-rc0/
> >> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/bookkeepe
> r-4.6.0-rc0/
> >> >*
> >> > [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> >> > orgapachebookkeeper-1021/
> >> > [4] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/tree/release-4.6.0
> >> >
> >>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache BookKeeper Release 4.6.0, release candidate #0
Posted by Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org>.
-1 from me unfortunately.
There are a lot of files in lib/ the bookkeeper-all which aren't
covered in the notice:
com.google.code.findbugs-jsr305-3.0.2.jar
com.google.errorprone-error_prone_annotations-2.1.2.jar
com.twitter-jsr166e-1.0.0.jar
com.twitter-libthrift-0.5.0-7.jar
com.twitter-libthrift-0.5.0-7.jar
com.twitter-scrooge-core_2.11-4.16.0.jar
com.twitter-twitter-server_2.11-1.29.0.jar
javax.inject-javax.inject-1.jar
javax.servlet-javax.servlet-api-3.1.0.jar
Bookkeeper-server notice doesn't cover:
com.google.code.findbugs-jsr305-3.0.2.jar
com.google.errorprone-error_prone_annotations-2.1.2.jar
javax.servlet-javax.servlet-api-3.1.0.jar
Don't use the lists above as a basis to fix though. Whoever is
updating should doublecheck that the NOTICE files cover everything in
lib. We're going to need a different NOTICE for bookkeeper-server and
bookkeeper-all also. It's probably worth getting maven to try and
generate these files for us.
Otherwise everything looks good.
1. checksums and signature checked out
2. findbugs, rat, and tests ran cleanly
3. Jepsen tests passed
The other thing that's needed for the next RC is that the breaks in
the API (around thrown exceptions), need to be noted clearly and
loudly in the release notes.
Best regards,
Ivan
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks a lot Enrico for the verification, especially for the notes. Would
> you please also help open some issues on github to track your findings and
> suggestions?
>
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 (non binding)
>> looks good to me
>>
>> - Built and tested candidate source tar ball
>> - Run Bookie and basic Bookie shel commands from the "dist all" package
>> - Checked tag on GitHub
>> - All tests are passing on my downstream projects (some of them need
>> re-compiling or minor changes)
>>
>> Thank you Jia for driving this and to every body, I expect great
>> improvements in production
>>
>> Notes:
>>
>> 1) There is a failing test on my dev machine, even on master. I think this
>> is not blocker for the release. It must be some problem on my machine:
>>
>> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(org.apache.
>> bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest)
>> Time elapsed: 12.871 sec <<< FAILURE!
>> java.lang.AssertionError: Bookie should be up and running
>> at
>> org.apache.bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest.
>> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(
>> BookieInitializationTest.java:602)
>>
>>
>> 2) NOTICE reports very old copyright note (dates to 2015) -> we should
>> check this on every file, not just this one, it is not a problem I think
>>
>> 3) EnsemblePlacementPolicy changed signatures of methods -> compile time
>> issue on downstream projects, I already knew, not a problem. I will not
>> create any issue.
>>
>> 4) BookKeeper.Builder#build -> now throws BKException -> compile time issue
>> on downstream projects, but it is not a showstopper. I wlil not create any
>> issue. This was expected.
>>
>> 5) Dropped dependency on commons collections -> so this disappeared from
>> downstream projects -> it is not a real problem, downstream project must
>> explicitly declare their own dependencies, it is not a BK problem.
>>
>> 6) We have better "BKException#getMessage", this has some impact on test
>> cases of downstream projects -> it is not a problem, I consider this a bug
>> on downstream projects, testcases should be more robust as BK provides
>> typed Exceptions
>>
>> Enrico
>>
>>
>> 2017-12-05 6:19 GMT+01:00 Jia Zhai <zh...@apache.org>:
>>
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the version
>> > 4.6.0, as follows:
>> > [ ] +1, Approve the release
>> > [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>> >
>> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
>> > * Release notes [1]
>> > * The official Apache source and binary distributions to be deployed
>> > to dist.apache.org [2]
>> > * All artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3]
>> > * Source code tag "release-4.6.0" [4]
>> >
>> > BookKeeper's KEYS file contains PGP keys we used to sign this
>> > release:https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bookkeeper/KEYS
>> >
>> > Please download these packages and review this release candidate:
>> >
>> > - Review release notes
>> > - Download the source package (verify md5, shasum, and asc) and follow
>> the
>> > instructions to build and run the bookkeeper service.
>> > - Download the binary package (verify md5, shasum, and asc) and follow
>> the
>> > instructions to run the bookkeeper service.
>> > - Review maven repo, release tag, licenses, and any other things you
>> think
>> > it is important to a release.
>> >
>> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
>> > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Jia Zhai
>> >
>> > [1] *https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759
>> > <https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759>*
>> > [2] *https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/
>> > bookkeeper-4.6.0-rc0/
>> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/bookkeeper-4.6.0-rc0/
>> >*
>> > [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
>> > orgapachebookkeeper-1021/
>> > [4] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/tree/release-4.6.0
>> >
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache BookKeeper Release 4.6.0, release candidate #0
Posted by Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com>.
Thanks a lot Enrico for the verification, especially for the notes. Would
you please also help open some issues on github to track your findings and
suggestions?
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1 (non binding)
> looks good to me
>
> - Built and tested candidate source tar ball
> - Run Bookie and basic Bookie shel commands from the "dist all" package
> - Checked tag on GitHub
> - All tests are passing on my downstream projects (some of them need
> re-compiling or minor changes)
>
> Thank you Jia for driving this and to every body, I expect great
> improvements in production
>
> Notes:
>
> 1) There is a failing test on my dev machine, even on master. I think this
> is not blocker for the release. It must be some problem on my machine:
>
> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(org.apache.
> bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest)
> Time elapsed: 12.871 sec <<< FAILURE!
> java.lang.AssertionError: Bookie should be up and running
> at
> org.apache.bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest.
> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(
> BookieInitializationTest.java:602)
>
>
> 2) NOTICE reports very old copyright note (dates to 2015) -> we should
> check this on every file, not just this one, it is not a problem I think
>
> 3) EnsemblePlacementPolicy changed signatures of methods -> compile time
> issue on downstream projects, I already knew, not a problem. I will not
> create any issue.
>
> 4) BookKeeper.Builder#build -> now throws BKException -> compile time issue
> on downstream projects, but it is not a showstopper. I wlil not create any
> issue. This was expected.
>
> 5) Dropped dependency on commons collections -> so this disappeared from
> downstream projects -> it is not a real problem, downstream project must
> explicitly declare their own dependencies, it is not a BK problem.
>
> 6) We have better "BKException#getMessage", this has some impact on test
> cases of downstream projects -> it is not a problem, I consider this a bug
> on downstream projects, testcases should be more robust as BK provides
> typed Exceptions
>
> Enrico
>
>
> 2017-12-05 6:19 GMT+01:00 Jia Zhai <zh...@apache.org>:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the version
> > 4.6.0, as follows:
> > [ ] +1, Approve the release
> > [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
> >
> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
> > * Release notes [1]
> > * The official Apache source and binary distributions to be deployed
> > to dist.apache.org [2]
> > * All artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3]
> > * Source code tag "release-4.6.0" [4]
> >
> > BookKeeper's KEYS file contains PGP keys we used to sign this
> > release:https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bookkeeper/KEYS
> >
> > Please download these packages and review this release candidate:
> >
> > - Review release notes
> > - Download the source package (verify md5, shasum, and asc) and follow
> the
> > instructions to build and run the bookkeeper service.
> > - Download the binary package (verify md5, shasum, and asc) and follow
> the
> > instructions to run the bookkeeper service.
> > - Review maven repo, release tag, licenses, and any other things you
> think
> > it is important to a release.
> >
> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jia Zhai
> >
> > [1] *https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759
> > <https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759>*
> > [2] *https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/
> > bookkeeper-4.6.0-rc0/
> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/bookkeeper-4.6.0-rc0/
> >*
> > [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> > orgapachebookkeeper-1021/
> > [4] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/tree/release-4.6.0
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache BookKeeper Release 4.6.0, release candidate #0
Posted by Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non binding)
looks good to me
- Built and tested candidate source tar ball
- Run Bookie and basic Bookie shel commands from the "dist all" package
- Checked tag on GitHub
- All tests are passing on my downstream projects (some of them need
re-compiling or minor changes)
Thank you Jia for driving this and to every body, I expect great
improvements in production
Notes:
1) There is a failing test on my dev machine, even on master. I think this
is not blocker for the release. It must be some problem on my machine:
testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(org.apache.bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest)
Time elapsed: 12.871 sec <<< FAILURE!
java.lang.AssertionError: Bookie should be up and running
at
org.apache.bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest.testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(BookieInitializationTest.java:602)
2) NOTICE reports very old copyright note (dates to 2015) -> we should
check this on every file, not just this one, it is not a problem I think
3) EnsemblePlacementPolicy changed signatures of methods -> compile time
issue on downstream projects, I already knew, not a problem. I will not
create any issue.
4) BookKeeper.Builder#build -> now throws BKException -> compile time issue
on downstream projects, but it is not a showstopper. I wlil not create any
issue. This was expected.
5) Dropped dependency on commons collections -> so this disappeared from
downstream projects -> it is not a real problem, downstream project must
explicitly declare their own dependencies, it is not a BK problem.
6) We have better "BKException#getMessage", this has some impact on test
cases of downstream projects -> it is not a problem, I consider this a bug
on downstream projects, testcases should be more robust as BK provides
typed Exceptions
Enrico
2017-12-05 6:19 GMT+01:00 Jia Zhai <zh...@apache.org>:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the version
> 4.6.0, as follows:
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>
> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
> * Release notes [1]
> * The official Apache source and binary distributions to be deployed
> to dist.apache.org [2]
> * All artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3]
> * Source code tag "release-4.6.0" [4]
>
> BookKeeper's KEYS file contains PGP keys we used to sign this
> release:https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bookkeeper/KEYS
>
> Please download these packages and review this release candidate:
>
> - Review release notes
> - Download the source package (verify md5, shasum, and asc) and follow the
> instructions to build and run the bookkeeper service.
> - Download the binary package (verify md5, shasum, and asc) and follow the
> instructions to run the bookkeeper service.
> - Review maven repo, release tag, licenses, and any other things you think
> it is important to a release.
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>
> Thanks,
> Jia Zhai
>
> [1] *https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759
> <https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759>*
> [2] *https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/
> bookkeeper-4.6.0-rc0/
> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/bookkeeper-4.6.0-rc0/>*
> [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> orgapachebookkeeper-1021/
> [4] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/tree/release-4.6.0
>