You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@bigtop.apache.org by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> on 2016/01/31 05:35:46 UTC
[VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1
This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
It fixes the following issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed on Wednesday,
February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote with
[ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop
[ ] +0, I don't care either way,
[ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop, because...
Source and binary files:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
Maven staging repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
Thanks!
Cos
{RESULT 2nd take]: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
After extending the voting period for a few more days to accommodate ppl's
travel, etc. the RC1 has been voted for the Bigtop 1.1.0 release with
four +1's (rvs, Olaf, Evans, cos)
zero -1's or 0's
Thanks everyone for casting the vote and spending your time to validate the
release. I will make it official and send the announcement shortly.
Regards,
Cos
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 08:35PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
>
> It fixes the following issues:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
>
> The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed on Wednesday,
> February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote with
>
> [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop
> [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
> [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop, because...
>
> Source and binary files:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
>
> Maven staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
>
> The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
>
> Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
>
> Thanks!
> Cos
Re: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:02 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> Good catch, filed BIGTOP-2318. Not sure if this warrants a respin though
I really don't think so -- this seems minor enough.
Thanks,
Roman.
Re: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
Good catch, filed BIGTOP-2318. Not sure if this warrants a respin though
Cos
On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 11:43PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> > This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
> >
> > It fixes the following issues:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
> >
> > The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed on Wednesday,
> > February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote with
> >
> > [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop
> > [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
> > [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop, because...
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> checked sigs, hashes, content of the tarball and tag.
>
> one small nit: the following files different between the tag and the tarball:
> bigtop-1.1.0/.dockerignore
> bigtop-1.1.0/gradle.properties
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
Re: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
>
> It fixes the following issues:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
>
> The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed on Wednesday,
> February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote with
>
> [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop
> [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
> [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop, because...
+1 (binding)
checked sigs, hashes, content of the tarball and tag.
one small nit: the following files different between the tag and the tarball:
bigtop-1.1.0/.dockerignore
bigtop-1.1.0/gradle.properties
Thanks,
Roman.
Re: RESULT [Was: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Evans Ye <ev...@apache.org>.
I've built the 1.1 slave images based on sombody's configured jenkins job
and pushed them to dockerhub.
Although we haven't release 1.1 yet but images can unlock the tests.
Its much more confident to me if I at lease see features at a all green
status on CI for the 1.1 branch.
Can we renegotiate the deadline? To me I can give feedback no late than 2/6.
Thanks for puting on the vote, cos.
2016年2月4日 下午7:39 於 "Konstantin Boudnik" <co...@apache.org> 寫道：
> The release [VOTE] has failed as not a single vote has been casted.
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 08:35PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
> >
> > It fixes the following issues:
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
> >
> > The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed on
> Wednesday,
> > February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote with
> >
> > [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop
> > [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
> > [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache
> Bigtop, because...
> >
> > Source and binary files:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
> >
> > Maven staging repo:
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
> >
> > The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
> >
> > Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Cos
>
>
>
Re: RESULT [Was: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's try again next week. This is clearly not a good time for folks. I think we could also hold the next vote open as long as it is necessary to collect three votes from the PMC.
+1 to the above. I was about to review and vote over the weekend
(FOSDEM is to blame for the last week).
Lets keep the vote open, shall we?
Thanks,
Roman.
Re: RESULT [Was: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>.
hi andrew,
++1 ! thanks.
olaf
> Am 04.02.2016 um 19:14 schrieb Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>:
>
> I volunteer to re-run the release vote next week with the same set of artifacts.
>
>>> On Feb 4, 2016, at 10:03 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 09:50AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>>> Let's try again next week. This is clearly not a good time for folks. I
>>> think we could also hold the next vote open as long as it is necessary to
>>> collect three votes from the PMC.
>>
>> Well, in the last 3 releases I can recall the vote was done within the same
>> reasonable timeframe. But sure. I won't be able to redo the vote though, as I
>> am traveling with only a 3G inet access. If anyone want to run the release
>> processes once again - please do.
>>
>> Cos
>>
>>>> On Feb 4, 2016, at 3:36 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The release [VOTE] has failed as not a single vote has been casted.
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 08:35PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>>>>> This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
>>>>>
>>>>> It fixes the following issues:
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed on Wednesday,
>>>>> February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote with
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop
>>>>> [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
>>>>> [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop, because...
>>>>>
>>>>> Source and binary files:
>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
>>>>>
>>>>> Maven staging repo:
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
>>>>>
>>>>> The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
>>>>>
>>>>> Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> Cos
>>>>
>>>>
Re: RESULT [Was: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>.
I volunteer to re-run the release vote next week with the same set of artifacts.
> On Feb 4, 2016, at 10:03 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 09:50AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>> Let's try again next week. This is clearly not a good time for folks. I
>> think we could also hold the next vote open as long as it is necessary to
>> collect three votes from the PMC.
>
> Well, in the last 3 releases I can recall the vote was done within the same
> reasonable timeframe. But sure. I won't be able to redo the vote though, as I
> am traveling with only a 3G inet access. If anyone want to run the release
> processes once again - please do.
>
> Cos
>
>>> On Feb 4, 2016, at 3:36 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> The release [VOTE] has failed as not a single vote has been casted.
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 08:35PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>>>> This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
>>>>
>>>> It fixes the following issues:
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
>>>>
>>>> The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed on Wednesday,
>>>> February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote with
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop
>>>> [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
>>>> [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop, because...
>>>>
>>>> Source and binary files:
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
>>>>
>>>> Maven staging repo:
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
>>>>
>>>> The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
>>>>
>>>> Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Cos
>>>
>>>
Re: RESULT [Was: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 09:50AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> Let's try again next week. This is clearly not a good time for folks. I
> think we could also hold the next vote open as long as it is necessary to
> collect three votes from the PMC.
Well, in the last 3 releases I can recall the vote was done within the same
reasonable timeframe. But sure. I won't be able to redo the vote though, as I
am traveling with only a 3G inet access. If anyone want to run the release
processes once again - please do.
Cos
> > On Feb 4, 2016, at 3:36 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > The release [VOTE] has failed as not a single vote has been casted.
> >
> >> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 08:35PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> >> This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
> >>
> >> It fixes the following issues:
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
> >>
> >> The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed on Wednesday,
> >> February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote with
> >>
> >> [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop
> >> [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
> >> [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop, because...
> >>
> >> Source and binary files:
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
> >>
> >> Maven staging repo:
> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
> >>
> >> The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
> >>
> >> Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Cos
> >
> >
Re: RESULT [Was: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>.
Let's try again next week. This is clearly not a good time for folks. I think we could also hold the next vote open as long as it is necessary to collect three votes from the PMC.
> On Feb 4, 2016, at 3:36 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> The release [VOTE] has failed as not a single vote has been casted.
>
>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 08:35PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>> This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
>>
>> It fixes the following issues:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
>>
>> The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed on Wednesday,
>> February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote with
>>
>> [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop
>> [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
>> [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop, because...
>>
>> Source and binary files:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
>>
>> Maven staging repo:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
>>
>> The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
>>
>> Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Cos
>
>
RESULT [Was: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
The release [VOTE] has failed as not a single vote has been casted.
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 08:35PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
>
> It fixes the following issues:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
>
> The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed on Wednesday,
> February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote with
>
> [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop
> [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
> [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop, because...
>
> Source and binary files:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
>
> Maven staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
>
> The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
>
> Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
>
> Thanks!
> Cos
Re: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
Thanks Evans, Olaf. I have committed the updated KEYS file.
Cos
On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 11:56PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> I think it's OK to just update the KEYS file.
>
>
> Here's my evaluation result of 1.1.0 RC1:
>
> 1. sha1, md5, signature verified
> 2. build bigtop/slaves 1.1.0 images
> 3. use above 1.1.0 slave images to build 1.1.0 packages
> 4. run Docker Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
> 5. run Vagrant Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
> 6. run hadoop and pig smoke tests
> 7. run hadoop itest
>
> Surely I didn't cover all the features, but the core feature I touched all
> works well.
> Hence here's my +1 to the RC1.
>
>
> 2016-02-07 15:23 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
>
> > Argh... the keys again. CB588E12 is one of my subs, but it is DSA key and
> > we
> > had a lot of troubles with the RPMs (because RPM only works with "secure"
> > RSA
> > keys). Eventually, for package signing I've used FA08B173, which is a part
> > of
> > the KEYS file.
> >
> > Technically, speaking there's no rule dictating to sign release artifacts
> > and
> > binary package with the same key. So, if having two keys is ok, then I will
> > need to add CB588E12 to the KEYS as well. Or alternatively, I (or someone
> > else) would need to do RC2 with correct signature.
> >
> > Cos
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 03:15PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > > Hi Olaf, did you get the key from keyserver?
> > >
> > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
> > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID
> > CB588E12
> > > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
> > >
> > > $ gpg --keyserver pgpkeys.mit.edu --recv-key CB588E12 # Took a while to
> > > finish
> > >
> > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
> > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID
> > CB588E12
> > > gpg: Good signature from "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <co...@boudnik.org>"
> > > gpg: aka "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <co...@apache.org>"
> > > gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> > > gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
> > > owner.
> > > Primary key fingerprint: 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27
> > E622
> > > Subkey fingerprint: 88C5 8332 D1A9 6A83 F9B3 2776 7A7C 8596 CB58
> > 8E12
> > >
> > >
> > > 2016-02-05 17:01 GMT+08:00 Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>:
> > >
> > > > hi,
> > > >
> > > > the signature file is made with a key CB588E12 , not contained in KEYS.
> > > > Or missed I something important?
> > > >
> > > > Olaf
> > > >
> > > > > Am 31.01.2016 um 05:35 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
> > > > >
> > > > > It fixes the following issues:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
> > > > >
> > > > > The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed on
> > > > Wednesday,
> > > > > February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote with
> > > > >
> > > > > [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop
> > > > > [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
> > > > > [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache
> > > > Bigtop, because...
> > > > >
> > > > > Source and binary files:
> > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
> > > > >
> > > > > Maven staging repo:
> > > > >
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
> > > > >
> > > > > The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
> > > > >
> > > > > Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > Cos
> > > >
> >
Re: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1
Posted by Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>.
I finally managed to run steps 1,2 (3 partly, 4 partly)
While testing on one of my machines it creates Zombie processes with 100% load, clearly signalling a kernel bug.
I seem to trip over docker induced kernel / aufs problems, like
https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/18180
Anyway: +1 to the release.
Olaf
> Am 07.02.2016 um 16:56 schrieb Evans Ye <ev...@apache.org>:
>
> I think it's OK to just update the KEYS file.
>
>
> Here's my evaluation result of 1.1.0 RC1:
>
> 1. sha1, md5, signature verified
> 2. build bigtop/slaves 1.1.0 images
> 3. use above 1.1.0 slave images to build 1.1.0 packages
> 4. run Docker Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
> 5. run Vagrant Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
> 6. run hadoop and pig smoke tests
> 7. run hadoop itest
>
> Surely I didn't cover all the features, but the core feature I touched all
> works well.
> Hence here's my +1 to the RC1.
>
>
> 2016-02-07 15:23 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
>
>> Argh... the keys again. CB588E12 is one of my subs, but it is DSA key and
>> we
>> had a lot of troubles with the RPMs (because RPM only works with "secure"
>> RSA
>> keys). Eventually, for package signing I've used FA08B173, which is a part
>> of
>> the KEYS file.
>>
>> Technically, speaking there's no rule dictating to sign release artifacts
>> and
>> binary package with the same key. So, if having two keys is ok, then I will
>> need to add CB588E12 to the KEYS as well. Or alternatively, I (or someone
>> else) would need to do RC2 with correct signature.
>>
>> Cos
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 03:15PM, Evans Ye wrote:
>>> Hi Olaf, did you get the key from keyserver?
>>>
>>> $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
>> bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
>>> gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID
>> CB588E12
>>> gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
>>>
>>> $ gpg --keyserver pgpkeys.mit.edu --recv-key CB588E12 # Took a while to
>>> finish
>>>
>>> $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
>> bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
>>> gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID
>> CB588E12
>>> gpg: Good signature from "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <co...@boudnik.org>"
>>> gpg: aka "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <co...@apache.org>"
>>> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
>>> gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
>>> owner.
>>> Primary key fingerprint: 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27
>> E622
>>> Subkey fingerprint: 88C5 8332 D1A9 6A83 F9B3 2776 7A7C 8596 CB58
>> 8E12
>>>
>>>
>>> 2016-02-05 17:01 GMT+08:00 Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>:
>>>
>>>> hi,
>>>>
>>>> the signature file is made with a key CB588E12 , not contained in KEYS.
>>>> Or missed I something important?
>>>>
>>>> Olaf
>>>>
>>>>> Am 31.01.2016 um 05:35 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
>>>>>
>>>>> It fixes the following issues:
>>>>>
>>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed on
>>>> Wednesday,
>>>>> February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote with
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop
>>>>> [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
>>>>> [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache
>>>> Bigtop, because...
>>>>>
>>>>> Source and binary files:
>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
>>>>>
>>>>> Maven staging repo:
>>>>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
>>>>>
>>>>> The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
>>>>>
>>>>> Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> Cos
>>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
By my estimation, this vote has passed, although the vote taker did call it
early. :-) Not a problem, we can proceed to call it again in my opinion,
unless there are objections.
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:38 AM, Evans Ye <ev...@apache.org> wrote:
> It looks like BIGTOP-2318 is not a big deal.
> I'd say go :)
>
> 2016-02-11 0:19 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
>
> > +1
> >
> > the RC1 looks good besides of the extra file issue already fixed on
> master
> >
> > I am not sure how to proceed with this. Shall we consider the original
> > [VOTE]
> > thread valid and simply call the tally? Or there's a feeling that we need
> > to
> > restart to vote and make it more formal than it is right now?
> >
> > Cos
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 11:56PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > > I think it's OK to just update the KEYS file.
> > >
> > >
> > > Here's my evaluation result of 1.1.0 RC1:
> > >
> > > 1. sha1, md5, signature verified
> > > 2. build bigtop/slaves 1.1.0 images
> > > 3. use above 1.1.0 slave images to build 1.1.0 packages
> > > 4. run Docker Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
> > > 5. run Vagrant Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
> > > 6. run hadoop and pig smoke tests
> > > 7. run hadoop itest
> > >
> > > Surely I didn't cover all the features, but the core feature I touched
> > all
> > > works well.
> > > Hence here's my +1 to the RC1.
> > >
> > >
> > > 2016-02-07 15:23 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > Argh... the keys again. CB588E12 is one of my subs, but it is DSA key
> > and
> > > > we
> > > > had a lot of troubles with the RPMs (because RPM only works with
> > "secure"
> > > > RSA
> > > > keys). Eventually, for package signing I've used FA08B173, which is a
> > part
> > > > of
> > > > the KEYS file.
> > > >
> > > > Technically, speaking there's no rule dictating to sign release
> > artifacts
> > > > and
> > > > binary package with the same key. So, if having two keys is ok, then
> I
> > will
> > > > need to add CB588E12 to the KEYS as well. Or alternatively, I (or
> > someone
> > > > else) would need to do RC2 with correct signature.
> > > >
> > > > Cos
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 03:15PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > > > > Hi Olaf, did you get the key from keyserver?
> > > > >
> > > > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
> > > > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> > > > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID
> > > > CB588E12
> > > > > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
> > > > >
> > > > > $ gpg --keyserver pgpkeys.mit.edu --recv-key CB588E12 # Took a
> > while to
> > > > > finish
> > > > >
> > > > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
> > > > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> > > > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID
> > > > CB588E12
> > > > > gpg: Good signature from "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <
> > cos@boudnik.org>"
> > > > > gpg: aka "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <
> cos@apache.org
> > >"
> > > > > gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> > > > > gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to
> > the
> > > > > owner.
> > > > > Primary key fingerprint: 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980
> > 1F27
> > > > E622
> > > > > Subkey fingerprint: 88C5 8332 D1A9 6A83 F9B3 2776 7A7C 8596
> > CB58
> > > > 8E12
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2016-02-05 17:01 GMT+08:00 Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the signature file is made with a key CB588E12 , not contained in
> > KEYS.
> > > > > > Or missed I something important?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Olaf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Am 31.01.2016 um 05:35 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <
> > cos@apache.org>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It fixes the following issues:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed
> > on
> > > > > > Wednesday,
> > > > > > > February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote
> > with
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache
> Bigtop
> > > > > > > [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
> > > > > > > [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of
> Apache
> > > > > > Bigtop, because...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Source and binary files:
> > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maven staging repo:
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the
> > release:
> > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > Cos
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: 1.1.0 final steps: [Was: Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
Since I'm going to publish binaries tomorrow anyway -- I'll include
ppc ones as well unless somebody complains.
Makes sense?
Thanks,
Roman.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:46 AM, MrAsanjar . <af...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Cos, I am perfectly okay with removing the two components for Power
> in release 1.1.0. Specially, since zeppelin built on x86 appears to
> function adequately on Power. And in-regard to tez, we could use the
> workaround offered by patch BIGTOP-2213
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> If this
>>
>> https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/ppc64le/job/Bigtop-trunk-packages-ppc64le/
>> is of any reference, then at least two components would fail to get build
>> in
>> the release as well. I believe the community should make a call if we are
>> ok
>> with providing ppc convenient binaries two components short? I am ok with
>> it,
>> because binaries aren't a part of the release per se, but what the others
>> think?
>>
>> In the meantime, you can create a job similar to
>> Bigtop-trunk-packages-ppc64le, but building from branch-1.1, and (if this
>> is
>> ok with the rest of the guys here) excluding two components failing
>> because of
>> the damn nodejs stuff.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Cos
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 07:48AM, MrAsanjar . wrote:
>> > hi cos,
>> > where is ppc64le? don't see in as part of the tags
>> > https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/Releases/job/Bigtop-1.1.0/11/
>> >
>> > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 1:55 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Guys,
>> > >
>> > > I have moved the bits to the dist/release, published the repo, pushed
>> new
>> > > tag
>> > > to the protected rel/ location, and updated the Reporter with the
>> release
>> > > date
>> > > (also update the How to Release wiki to reflect current process).
>> > >
>> > > Roman,
>> > >
>> > > thank to Evans uncanny foresight the packages are all done and waiting
>> to
>> > > be
>> > > signed. Please grab them here
>> > > https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/Releases/job/Bigtop-1.1.0/11/
>> > > and proceed as usual. If you need credentials for our new s3 buckets
>> ping
>> > > me
>> > > or Andrew so we can share them with you.
>> > >
>> > > Once the repos are provisioned I will push updated site and send the
>> > > releases
>> > > announcement.
>> > >
>> > > Cheers,
>> > > Cos
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 06:04PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> > > > I can definitely help with binary artifacts, but it'll have to be
>> over
>> > > the
>> > > > [long] weekend.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > > Roman.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 12:38AM, Evans Ye wrote:
>> > > > >> It looks like BIGTOP-2318 is not a big deal.
>> > > > >> I'd say go :)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'd say so too ;) I will wait a couple more days in case there late
>> > > votes,
>> > > > > then close the thread and publish the release. I might need help
>> with
>> > > > > signing/publishing the binary artifacts, as I am on 4G cell-link
>> and
>> > > > > transferring a bunch of repos around might not be fast.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Rvs, you were volunteering IIRC? ;)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Cos
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> 2016-02-11 0:19 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> > +1
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > the RC1 looks good besides of the extra file issue already
>> fixed on
>> > > master
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > I am not sure how to proceed with this. Shall we consider the
>> > > original
>> > > > >> > [VOTE]
>> > > > >> > thread valid and simply call the tally? Or there's a feeling
>> that
>> > > we need
>> > > > >> > to
>> > > > >> > restart to vote and make it more formal than it is right now?
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Cos
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 11:56PM, Evans Ye wrote:
>> > > > >> > > I think it's OK to just update the KEYS file.
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > Here's my evaluation result of 1.1.0 RC1:
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > 1. sha1, md5, signature verified
>> > > > >> > > 2. build bigtop/slaves 1.1.0 images
>> > > > >> > > 3. use above 1.1.0 slave images to build 1.1.0 packages
>> > > > >> > > 4. run Docker Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
>> > > > >> > > 5. run Vagrant Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
>> > > > >> > > 6. run hadoop and pig smoke tests
>> > > > >> > > 7. run hadoop itest
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > Surely I didn't cover all the features, but the core feature I
>> > > touched
>> > > > >> > all
>> > > > >> > > works well.
>> > > > >> > > Hence here's my +1 to the RC1.
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > 2016-02-07 15:23 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org
>> >:
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > > Argh... the keys again. CB588E12 is one of my subs, but it
>> is
>> > > DSA key
>> > > > >> > and
>> > > > >> > > > we
>> > > > >> > > > had a lot of troubles with the RPMs (because RPM only works
>> with
>> > > > >> > "secure"
>> > > > >> > > > RSA
>> > > > >> > > > keys). Eventually, for package signing I've used FA08B173,
>> > > which is a
>> > > > >> > part
>> > > > >> > > > of
>> > > > >> > > > the KEYS file.
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > Technically, speaking there's no rule dictating to sign
>> release
>> > > > >> > artifacts
>> > > > >> > > > and
>> > > > >> > > > binary package with the same key. So, if having two keys is
>> ok,
>> > > then I
>> > > > >> > will
>> > > > >> > > > need to add CB588E12 to the KEYS as well. Or alternatively,
>> I
>> > > (or
>> > > > >> > someone
>> > > > >> > > > else) would need to do RC2 with correct signature.
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > Cos
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 03:15PM, Evans Ye wrote:
>> > > > >> > > > > Hi Olaf, did you get the key from keyserver?
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
>> > > > >> > > > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
>> > > > >> > > > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA
>> > > key ID
>> > > > >> > > > CB588E12
>> > > > >> > > > > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > $ gpg --keyserver pgpkeys.mit.edu --recv-key CB588E12 #
>> > > Took a
>> > > > >> > while to
>> > > > >> > > > > finish
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
>> > > > >> > > > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
>> > > > >> > > > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA
>> > > key ID
>> > > > >> > > > CB588E12
>> > > > >> > > > > gpg: Good signature from "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <
>> > > > >> > cos@boudnik.org>"
>> > > > >> > > > > gpg: aka "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <
>> > > cos@apache.org
>> > > > >> > >"
>> > > > >> > > > > gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted
>> > > signature!
>> > > > >> > > > > gpg: There is no indication that the signature
>> > > belongs to
>> > > > >> > the
>> > > > >> > > > > owner.
>> > > > >> > > > > Primary key fingerprint: 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115
>> 220F
>> > > 6980
>> > > > >> > 1F27
>> > > > >> > > > E622
>> > > > >> > > > > Subkey fingerprint: 88C5 8332 D1A9 6A83 F9B3 2776
>> 7A7C
>> > > 8596
>> > > > >> > CB58
>> > > > >> > > > 8E12
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > 2016-02-05 17:01 GMT+08:00 Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>:
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > hi,
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > the signature file is made with a key CB588E12 , not
>> > > contained in
>> > > > >> > KEYS.
>> > > > >> > > > > > Or missed I something important?
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > Olaf
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > Am 31.01.2016 um 05:35 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <
>> > > > >> > cos@apache.org>:
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > It fixes the following issues:
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> >
>> > >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will
>> be
>> > > closed
>> > > > >> > on
>> > > > >> > > > > > Wednesday,
>> > > > >> > > > > > > February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test
>> and
>> > > vote
>> > > > >> > with
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of
>> > > Apache Bigtop
>> > > > >> > > > > > > [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
>> > > > >> > > > > > > [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0
>> release
>> > > of Apache
>> > > > >> > > > > > Bigtop, because...
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > Source and binary files:
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > Maven staging repo:
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> >
>> > >
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign
>> the
>> > > > >> > release:
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks!
>> > > > >> > > > > > > Cos
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> >
>> > >
>>
Re: 1.1.0 final steps: [Was: Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by "MrAsanjar ." <af...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Cos, I am perfectly okay with removing the two components for Power
in release 1.1.0. Specially, since zeppelin built on x86 appears to
function adequately on Power. And in-regard to tez, we could use the
workaround offered by patch BIGTOP-2213
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> If this
>
> https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/ppc64le/job/Bigtop-trunk-packages-ppc64le/
> is of any reference, then at least two components would fail to get build
> in
> the release as well. I believe the community should make a call if we are
> ok
> with providing ppc convenient binaries two components short? I am ok with
> it,
> because binaries aren't a part of the release per se, but what the others
> think?
>
> In the meantime, you can create a job similar to
> Bigtop-trunk-packages-ppc64le, but building from branch-1.1, and (if this
> is
> ok with the rest of the guys here) excluding two components failing
> because of
> the damn nodejs stuff.
>
> Regards,
> Cos
>
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 07:48AM, MrAsanjar . wrote:
> > hi cos,
> > where is ppc64le? don't see in as part of the tags
> > https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/Releases/job/Bigtop-1.1.0/11/
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 1:55 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > I have moved the bits to the dist/release, published the repo, pushed
> new
> > > tag
> > > to the protected rel/ location, and updated the Reporter with the
> release
> > > date
> > > (also update the How to Release wiki to reflect current process).
> > >
> > > Roman,
> > >
> > > thank to Evans uncanny foresight the packages are all done and waiting
> to
> > > be
> > > signed. Please grab them here
> > > https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/Releases/job/Bigtop-1.1.0/11/
> > > and proceed as usual. If you need credentials for our new s3 buckets
> ping
> > > me
> > > or Andrew so we can share them with you.
> > >
> > > Once the repos are provisioned I will push updated site and send the
> > > releases
> > > announcement.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Cos
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 06:04PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > > > I can definitely help with binary artifacts, but it'll have to be
> over
> > > the
> > > > [long] weekend.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Roman.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 12:38AM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > > > >> It looks like BIGTOP-2318 is not a big deal.
> > > > >> I'd say go :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd say so too ;) I will wait a couple more days in case there late
> > > votes,
> > > > > then close the thread and publish the release. I might need help
> with
> > > > > signing/publishing the binary artifacts, as I am on 4G cell-link
> and
> > > > > transferring a bunch of repos around might not be fast.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rvs, you were volunteering IIRC? ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > Cos
> > > > >
> > > > >> 2016-02-11 0:19 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > +1
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > the RC1 looks good besides of the extra file issue already
> fixed on
> > > master
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I am not sure how to proceed with this. Shall we consider the
> > > original
> > > > >> > [VOTE]
> > > > >> > thread valid and simply call the tally? Or there's a feeling
> that
> > > we need
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > restart to vote and make it more formal than it is right now?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Cos
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 11:56PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > > > >> > > I think it's OK to just update the KEYS file.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Here's my evaluation result of 1.1.0 RC1:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > 1. sha1, md5, signature verified
> > > > >> > > 2. build bigtop/slaves 1.1.0 images
> > > > >> > > 3. use above 1.1.0 slave images to build 1.1.0 packages
> > > > >> > > 4. run Docker Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
> > > > >> > > 5. run Vagrant Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
> > > > >> > > 6. run hadoop and pig smoke tests
> > > > >> > > 7. run hadoop itest
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Surely I didn't cover all the features, but the core feature I
> > > touched
> > > > >> > all
> > > > >> > > works well.
> > > > >> > > Hence here's my +1 to the RC1.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > 2016-02-07 15:23 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org
> >:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > Argh... the keys again. CB588E12 is one of my subs, but it
> is
> > > DSA key
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > > > we
> > > > >> > > > had a lot of troubles with the RPMs (because RPM only works
> with
> > > > >> > "secure"
> > > > >> > > > RSA
> > > > >> > > > keys). Eventually, for package signing I've used FA08B173,
> > > which is a
> > > > >> > part
> > > > >> > > > of
> > > > >> > > > the KEYS file.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Technically, speaking there's no rule dictating to sign
> release
> > > > >> > artifacts
> > > > >> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > binary package with the same key. So, if having two keys is
> ok,
> > > then I
> > > > >> > will
> > > > >> > > > need to add CB588E12 to the KEYS as well. Or alternatively,
> I
> > > (or
> > > > >> > someone
> > > > >> > > > else) would need to do RC2 with correct signature.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Cos
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 03:15PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > Hi Olaf, did you get the key from keyserver?
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
> > > > >> > > > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> > > > >> > > > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA
> > > key ID
> > > > >> > > > CB588E12
> > > > >> > > > > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > $ gpg --keyserver pgpkeys.mit.edu --recv-key CB588E12 #
> > > Took a
> > > > >> > while to
> > > > >> > > > > finish
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
> > > > >> > > > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> > > > >> > > > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA
> > > key ID
> > > > >> > > > CB588E12
> > > > >> > > > > gpg: Good signature from "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <
> > > > >> > cos@boudnik.org>"
> > > > >> > > > > gpg: aka "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <
> > > cos@apache.org
> > > > >> > >"
> > > > >> > > > > gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted
> > > signature!
> > > > >> > > > > gpg: There is no indication that the signature
> > > belongs to
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > owner.
> > > > >> > > > > Primary key fingerprint: 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115
> 220F
> > > 6980
> > > > >> > 1F27
> > > > >> > > > E622
> > > > >> > > > > Subkey fingerprint: 88C5 8332 D1A9 6A83 F9B3 2776
> 7A7C
> > > 8596
> > > > >> > CB58
> > > > >> > > > 8E12
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > 2016-02-05 17:01 GMT+08:00 Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > hi,
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > the signature file is made with a key CB588E12 , not
> > > contained in
> > > > >> > KEYS.
> > > > >> > > > > > Or missed I something important?
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Olaf
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Am 31.01.2016 um 05:35 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <
> > > > >> > cos@apache.org>:
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > It fixes the following issues:
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> >
> > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will
> be
> > > closed
> > > > >> > on
> > > > >> > > > > > Wednesday,
> > > > >> > > > > > > February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test
> and
> > > vote
> > > > >> > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of
> > > Apache Bigtop
> > > > >> > > > > > > [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
> > > > >> > > > > > > [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0
> release
> > > of Apache
> > > > >> > > > > > Bigtop, because...
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Source and binary files:
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Maven staging repo:
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> >
> > >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign
> the
> > > > >> > release:
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >> > > > > > > Cos
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> >
> > >
>
Re: 1.1.0 final steps: [Was: Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
If this
https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/ppc64le/job/Bigtop-trunk-packages-ppc64le/
is of any reference, then at least two components would fail to get build in
the release as well. I believe the community should make a call if we are ok
with providing ppc convenient binaries two components short? I am ok with it,
because binaries aren't a part of the release per se, but what the others
think?
In the meantime, you can create a job similar to
Bigtop-trunk-packages-ppc64le, but building from branch-1.1, and (if this is
ok with the rest of the guys here) excluding two components failing because of
the damn nodejs stuff.
Regards,
Cos
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 07:48AM, MrAsanjar . wrote:
> hi cos,
> where is ppc64le? don't see in as part of the tags
> https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/Releases/job/Bigtop-1.1.0/11/
>
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 1:55 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Guys,
> >
> > I have moved the bits to the dist/release, published the repo, pushed new
> > tag
> > to the protected rel/ location, and updated the Reporter with the release
> > date
> > (also update the How to Release wiki to reflect current process).
> >
> > Roman,
> >
> > thank to Evans uncanny foresight the packages are all done and waiting to
> > be
> > signed. Please grab them here
> > https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/Releases/job/Bigtop-1.1.0/11/
> > and proceed as usual. If you need credentials for our new s3 buckets ping
> > me
> > or Andrew so we can share them with you.
> >
> > Once the repos are provisioned I will push updated site and send the
> > releases
> > announcement.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Cos
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 06:04PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > > I can definitely help with binary artifacts, but it'll have to be over
> > the
> > > [long] weekend.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Roman.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 12:38AM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > > >> It looks like BIGTOP-2318 is not a big deal.
> > > >> I'd say go :)
> > > >
> > > > I'd say so too ;) I will wait a couple more days in case there late
> > votes,
> > > > then close the thread and publish the release. I might need help with
> > > > signing/publishing the binary artifacts, as I am on 4G cell-link and
> > > > transferring a bunch of repos around might not be fast.
> > > >
> > > > Rvs, you were volunteering IIRC? ;)
> > > >
> > > > Cos
> > > >
> > > >> 2016-02-11 0:19 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> > > >>
> > > >> > +1
> > > >> >
> > > >> > the RC1 looks good besides of the extra file issue already fixed on
> > master
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I am not sure how to proceed with this. Shall we consider the
> > original
> > > >> > [VOTE]
> > > >> > thread valid and simply call the tally? Or there's a feeling that
> > we need
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > restart to vote and make it more formal than it is right now?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Cos
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 11:56PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > > >> > > I think it's OK to just update the KEYS file.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Here's my evaluation result of 1.1.0 RC1:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > 1. sha1, md5, signature verified
> > > >> > > 2. build bigtop/slaves 1.1.0 images
> > > >> > > 3. use above 1.1.0 slave images to build 1.1.0 packages
> > > >> > > 4. run Docker Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
> > > >> > > 5. run Vagrant Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
> > > >> > > 6. run hadoop and pig smoke tests
> > > >> > > 7. run hadoop itest
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Surely I didn't cover all the features, but the core feature I
> > touched
> > > >> > all
> > > >> > > works well.
> > > >> > > Hence here's my +1 to the RC1.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > 2016-02-07 15:23 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Argh... the keys again. CB588E12 is one of my subs, but it is
> > DSA key
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > > we
> > > >> > > > had a lot of troubles with the RPMs (because RPM only works with
> > > >> > "secure"
> > > >> > > > RSA
> > > >> > > > keys). Eventually, for package signing I've used FA08B173,
> > which is a
> > > >> > part
> > > >> > > > of
> > > >> > > > the KEYS file.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Technically, speaking there's no rule dictating to sign release
> > > >> > artifacts
> > > >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > binary package with the same key. So, if having two keys is ok,
> > then I
> > > >> > will
> > > >> > > > need to add CB588E12 to the KEYS as well. Or alternatively, I
> > (or
> > > >> > someone
> > > >> > > > else) would need to do RC2 with correct signature.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Cos
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 03:15PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > > >> > > > > Hi Olaf, did you get the key from keyserver?
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
> > > >> > > > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> > > >> > > > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA
> > key ID
> > > >> > > > CB588E12
> > > >> > > > > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > $ gpg --keyserver pgpkeys.mit.edu --recv-key CB588E12 #
> > Took a
> > > >> > while to
> > > >> > > > > finish
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
> > > >> > > > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> > > >> > > > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA
> > key ID
> > > >> > > > CB588E12
> > > >> > > > > gpg: Good signature from "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <
> > > >> > cos@boudnik.org>"
> > > >> > > > > gpg: aka "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <
> > cos@apache.org
> > > >> > >"
> > > >> > > > > gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted
> > signature!
> > > >> > > > > gpg: There is no indication that the signature
> > belongs to
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > owner.
> > > >> > > > > Primary key fingerprint: 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F
> > 6980
> > > >> > 1F27
> > > >> > > > E622
> > > >> > > > > Subkey fingerprint: 88C5 8332 D1A9 6A83 F9B3 2776 7A7C
> > 8596
> > > >> > CB58
> > > >> > > > 8E12
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > 2016-02-05 17:01 GMT+08:00 Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > hi,
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > the signature file is made with a key CB588E12 , not
> > contained in
> > > >> > KEYS.
> > > >> > > > > > Or missed I something important?
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Olaf
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Am 31.01.2016 um 05:35 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <
> > > >> > cos@apache.org>:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > It fixes the following issues:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be
> > closed
> > > >> > on
> > > >> > > > > > Wednesday,
> > > >> > > > > > > February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and
> > vote
> > > >> > with
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of
> > Apache Bigtop
> > > >> > > > > > > [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
> > > >> > > > > > > [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release
> > of Apache
> > > >> > > > > > Bigtop, because...
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Source and binary files:
> > > >> > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Maven staging repo:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> >
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the
> > > >> > release:
> > > >> > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > >> > > > > > > Cos
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> >
> >
Re: 1.1.0 final steps: [Was: Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by "MrAsanjar ." <af...@gmail.com>.
hi cos,
where is ppc64le? don't see in as part of the tags
https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/Releases/job/Bigtop-1.1.0/11/
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 1:55 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I have moved the bits to the dist/release, published the repo, pushed new
> tag
> to the protected rel/ location, and updated the Reporter with the release
> date
> (also update the How to Release wiki to reflect current process).
>
> Roman,
>
> thank to Evans uncanny foresight the packages are all done and waiting to
> be
> signed. Please grab them here
> https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/Releases/job/Bigtop-1.1.0/11/
> and proceed as usual. If you need credentials for our new s3 buckets ping
> me
> or Andrew so we can share them with you.
>
> Once the repos are provisioned I will push updated site and send the
> releases
> announcement.
>
> Cheers,
> Cos
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 06:04PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > I can definitely help with binary artifacts, but it'll have to be over
> the
> > [long] weekend.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 12:38AM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > >> It looks like BIGTOP-2318 is not a big deal.
> > >> I'd say go :)
> > >
> > > I'd say so too ;) I will wait a couple more days in case there late
> votes,
> > > then close the thread and publish the release. I might need help with
> > > signing/publishing the binary artifacts, as I am on 4G cell-link and
> > > transferring a bunch of repos around might not be fast.
> > >
> > > Rvs, you were volunteering IIRC? ;)
> > >
> > > Cos
> > >
> > >> 2016-02-11 0:19 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> > >>
> > >> > +1
> > >> >
> > >> > the RC1 looks good besides of the extra file issue already fixed on
> master
> > >> >
> > >> > I am not sure how to proceed with this. Shall we consider the
> original
> > >> > [VOTE]
> > >> > thread valid and simply call the tally? Or there's a feeling that
> we need
> > >> > to
> > >> > restart to vote and make it more formal than it is right now?
> > >> >
> > >> > Cos
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 11:56PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > >> > > I think it's OK to just update the KEYS file.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Here's my evaluation result of 1.1.0 RC1:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 1. sha1, md5, signature verified
> > >> > > 2. build bigtop/slaves 1.1.0 images
> > >> > > 3. use above 1.1.0 slave images to build 1.1.0 packages
> > >> > > 4. run Docker Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
> > >> > > 5. run Vagrant Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
> > >> > > 6. run hadoop and pig smoke tests
> > >> > > 7. run hadoop itest
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Surely I didn't cover all the features, but the core feature I
> touched
> > >> > all
> > >> > > works well.
> > >> > > Hence here's my +1 to the RC1.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 2016-02-07 15:23 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Argh... the keys again. CB588E12 is one of my subs, but it is
> DSA key
> > >> > and
> > >> > > > we
> > >> > > > had a lot of troubles with the RPMs (because RPM only works with
> > >> > "secure"
> > >> > > > RSA
> > >> > > > keys). Eventually, for package signing I've used FA08B173,
> which is a
> > >> > part
> > >> > > > of
> > >> > > > the KEYS file.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Technically, speaking there's no rule dictating to sign release
> > >> > artifacts
> > >> > > > and
> > >> > > > binary package with the same key. So, if having two keys is ok,
> then I
> > >> > will
> > >> > > > need to add CB588E12 to the KEYS as well. Or alternatively, I
> (or
> > >> > someone
> > >> > > > else) would need to do RC2 with correct signature.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Cos
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 03:15PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > >> > > > > Hi Olaf, did you get the key from keyserver?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
> > >> > > > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> > >> > > > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA
> key ID
> > >> > > > CB588E12
> > >> > > > > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > $ gpg --keyserver pgpkeys.mit.edu --recv-key CB588E12 #
> Took a
> > >> > while to
> > >> > > > > finish
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
> > >> > > > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> > >> > > > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA
> key ID
> > >> > > > CB588E12
> > >> > > > > gpg: Good signature from "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <
> > >> > cos@boudnik.org>"
> > >> > > > > gpg: aka "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <
> cos@apache.org
> > >> > >"
> > >> > > > > gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted
> signature!
> > >> > > > > gpg: There is no indication that the signature
> belongs to
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > owner.
> > >> > > > > Primary key fingerprint: 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F
> 6980
> > >> > 1F27
> > >> > > > E622
> > >> > > > > Subkey fingerprint: 88C5 8332 D1A9 6A83 F9B3 2776 7A7C
> 8596
> > >> > CB58
> > >> > > > 8E12
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > 2016-02-05 17:01 GMT+08:00 Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > hi,
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > the signature file is made with a key CB588E12 , not
> contained in
> > >> > KEYS.
> > >> > > > > > Or missed I something important?
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Olaf
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Am 31.01.2016 um 05:35 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <
> > >> > cos@apache.org>:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > It fixes the following issues:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be
> closed
> > >> > on
> > >> > > > > > Wednesday,
> > >> > > > > > > February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and
> vote
> > >> > with
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of
> Apache Bigtop
> > >> > > > > > > [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
> > >> > > > > > > [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release
> of Apache
> > >> > > > > > Bigtop, because...
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Source and binary files:
> > >> > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Maven staging repo:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the
> > >> > release:
> > >> > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > >> > > > > > > Cos
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> >
>
Re: 1.1.0 final steps: [Was: Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
I have added the repos/ into the release area. Only the keys issue need to be
solved, and repo files have to be signed with the same keys as the packages.
Thanks
Cos
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 02:00PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> Looks like the repos were published earlier today by Roman (thanks dude!)
> A couple of small nits:
> - we still need to add repos/ directory into the dist's release/bigtop (like
> we did before)
> - the signing key 9475bd5d doesn't seem to be added to the KEYS, nor is a
> part of the repos/ (obviously)
>
> I have tried to deploy and quickly test centos and ubuntu in-docker clusters
> and the basic setup seems to be working fine.
>
> Cos
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:44PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > Just wanted to say that thanks to Cos I'm now fully empowered to sign
> > and upload binaries tomorrow!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> > > Hi Guys!
> > >
> > > the valentine day is almost over and I think it would only
> > > be fair if Bigtop 1.1.0 release were to become my other
> > > valentine ;-)
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >> Roman,
> > >>
> > >> thank to Evans uncanny foresight the packages are all done and waiting to be
> > >> signed. Please grab them here
> > >> https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/Releases/job/Bigtop-1.1.0/11/
> > >
> > > This is pretty awesome. Thanks Evans! One little complication is that
> > > in all this excitement I seem to be no longer able to login into our
> > > Jenkis machine. Can anyone please add my ssh public key (you can
> > > find it at the bottom of this email in both plain ASCII and also uuencoded
> > > to make sure line-endings/etc. don't bite us). My plan is to do the
> > > signing and s3
> > > upload from that machine. Speaking of which...
> > >
> > >> and proceed as usual. If you need credentials for our new s3 buckets ping me
> > >> or Andrew so we can share them with you.
> > >
> > > Yes. I also do need those. Can you please send them to me encoded to
> > > the GPG key http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x13971DA39475BD5D ?
> > >
> > >> Once the repos are provisioned I will push updated site and send the releases
> > >> announcement.
> > >
> > > Sounds like a plan!
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Roman.
> > >
> > > ssh-rsa AAAAB3NzaC1yc2EAAAADAQABAAABAQC1TmmEe5EwTxhlLua8ctA7DShbeLRifY3kFVQ6bQqKSF28YaIscjaBxXUDCEmh5PnUnKeDlY4Y/j9Gjp56c9SpLji6jqTycxOlcWtZzn8yrFmueFHFbR8AeUm1w/Ju6Dc/eGf2A0yygV8ejGwWPsRLIJGfiUMFedQ83Xes0W14mYA3knE2rN74xkmGwRk33/CIS+CXWdfm4CjIyhinlWH2rOBp4pP97pb4kUhRCSWJoDPYff/wXcUP753bc7zDeW6BGvWx/0Q1ZV+NaNV50lvQ9DAsYK5i47Cpi48KauEfQRdrYbbOT7/UwJyl2CdEruA8dbV8Lm7sz16BU/Xr0BeB
> > > rvs@apache.org
> > >
> > >
Re: 1.1.0 final steps: [Was: Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
You're welcome ;)
These are trunk packages - they aren't build from the same tag as 1.1.0. I
don't think it is correct to mix them into release repos. Sorry.
Cos
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 01:47AM, Evans Ye wrote:
> Cos and Roman
> Thanks for pushing hard on the 1.1 release!
> The PPC packages are available here:
> https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/ppc64le/job/Bigtop-trunk-packages-ppc64le
>
> Asanjar
> I guess we can not easily put together PPC and the other packages together
> in same release job because ubuntu-15.04-ppc64le require a ppc slave, right?
>
>
> 2016-02-17 13:40 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
>
> > Two things:
> > - the packages for ppc 1.1.0 aren't available anywhere. Looks like the job
> > you have put together failed. Sorry, I am half across the world and
> > dealing
> > with a lot right now, so I can not spare any time to fix it
> > - you can go ahead and make the announcement. Binary artifacts aren't a
> > part
> > of the official release. The official release is done a available from
> > http://www.apache.org/dist/bigtop/bigtop-1.1.0/
> >
> > Packages will be posted later - not big of a deal
> >
> > Cos
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 06:54PM, MrAsanjar . wrote:
> > > Roman, thanks man. Let me know when repo will be updated with ppc
> > packages.
> > > I am at Spark Summit East and would like to make an announcement as soon
> > as
> > > you give the thumbs up.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > thanks for all! I tested some random packages from the centos-7 repo.
> > > > Works like a charm.
> > > >
> > > > The debian-8 GPG signature can be downloaded from the gpg keyserver,
> > works
> > > > for me.
> > > > I suggest to add a KEYS file with Romans Signing Key 13971DA39475BD5D
> > into
> > > > http://<mirror>/apache/bigtop/bigtop-1.1.0/
> > > >
> > > > But anyway, great job, we did it!
> > > >
> > > > Olaf
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Am 16.02.2016 um 17:42 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Weird indeed. I checked for myself and it was there. Anyway - thanks
> > a
> > > > bunch
> > > > > for your help!
> > > > >
> > > > > Guys, if you can do some quick sanity tests in addition to what I
> > have
> > > > done
> > > > > earlier - it'd be great! Right after we can do the official
> > announcement
> > > > of
> > > > > the release.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Cos
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 08:34AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > > > >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>> Looks like the repos were published earlier today by Roman (thanks
> > > > dude!)
> > > > >>> A couple of small nits:
> > > > >>> - we still need to add repos/ directory into the dist's
> > release/bigtop
> > > > (like
> > > > >>> we did before)
> > > > >>> I have added the repos/ into the release area.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks man! I've pushed the signatures.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> - the signing key 9475bd5d doesn't seem to be added to the KEYS,
> > nor
> > > > is a
> > > > >>> part of the repos/ (obviously)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This is odd, the key is definitely in the canonical file. See for
> > > > yourself:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> $ rm -rf /tmp/12345 ; mkdir /tmp/12345
> > > > >> $ curl https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS >
> > > > /tmp/12345/KEYS
> > > > >> $ GPG_HOME=/tmp/12345 gpg --import /tmp/12345/KEYS
> > > > >> gpg: key 3ADD02D6: "Andrew Bayer (CODE SIGNING KEY)
> > > > >> <ab...@apache.org>" not changed
> > > > >> gpg: key 9475BD5D: "Roman V Shaposhnik (CODE SIGNING KEY)
> > > > >> <rv...@apache.org>" not changed
> > > > >> gpg: key 1F27E622: "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <co...@boudnik.org>"
> > not
> > > > changed
> > > > >> gpg: Total number processed: 3
> > > > >> gpg: unchanged: 3
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> I have tried to deploy and quickly test centos and ubuntu in-docker
> > > > clusters
> > > > >>> and the basic setup seems to be working fine.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Cool! Lets see if this key issue is transient on your part.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> Roman.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
Re: 1.1.0 final steps: [Was: Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>.
Hi,
I am struggeling with all kinds of external influences to get it built.
Olaf
> Am 20.02.2016 um 08:57 schrieb Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>:
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:27 PM, MrAsanjar . <af...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks Olaf for the list of missing shared libraries, it will become
>> helpful as we are planing to engage maven and other communities to include
>> missing/correct libraries in maven public repository. Meanwhile, we
>> consider Apache bigtop 1.1.0 release for ppc as a PoC release.
>
> Just catching up with this thread. Like I said -- I'm not at all
> against publishing
> 1.1.0 PPC packages -- I just need to be pointed a green Jenkins job with
> the output full of said packages ;-)
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
Re: 1.1.0 final steps: [Was: Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:27 PM, MrAsanjar . <af...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Olaf for the list of missing shared libraries, it will become
> helpful as we are planing to engage maven and other communities to include
> missing/correct libraries in maven public repository. Meanwhile, we
> consider Apache bigtop 1.1.0 release for ppc as a PoC release.
Just catching up with this thread. Like I said -- I'm not at all
against publishing
1.1.0 PPC packages -- I just need to be pointed a green Jenkins job with
the output full of said packages ;-)
Thanks,
Roman.
Re: 1.1.0 final steps: [Was: Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by "MrAsanjar ." <af...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Olaf for the list of missing shared libraries, it will become
helpful as we are planing to engage maven and other communities to include
missing/correct libraries in maven public repository. Meanwhile, we
consider Apache bigtop 1.1.0 release for ppc as a PoC release. Thus, it is
of extreme importance to have BigTop 1.1.0 release for ppc as we are
planing to establish a power community around Apache BigTop 1.1.0 release.
We should have all these issues resolved by Bigtop 1.2.0 release.
btw, I will have a patch for BIGTOP-2305 tonight.
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de> wrote:
> Yes, there are a couple of issues all with missing shared libs in jar
> files.
>
> BIGTOP-2305 and there are a couple of others.
>
> I wrote a tool to systematically search all the missing libs, stay
> tuned....
>
> These are the shared libs contained in all our maven repository after
> compile:
> -------------
> libhadoop.so
> libhdfs.so
> libibushandler.so
> libigniteshmem.so
> libjansi.so
> libjblas.so
> libjblas_arch_flavor.so
> libjffi-1.0.so
> libjffi-1.2.so
> libjnidispatch.so
> libjruby-cext.so
> libleveldbjni.so
> liblz4-java.so
> libnetty-transport-native-epoll.so
> libsigar.so
> libsnappy.so
> libsnappyjava.so
> x_ignore_nofocus.so
> ---------------
>
> These are the shared libs grouped by artefact
>
>
> repository/com/facebook/hiveio/hive-io-exp-core/0.26/hive-io-exp-core-0.26.jar|libsigar.so
>
> repository/com/typesafe/sbt/incremental-compiler/0.13.5/incremental-compiler-0.13.5.jar|libjansi.so
>
> repository/io/netty/netty-all/4.0.21.Final/netty-all-4.0.21.Final.jar|libnetty-transport-native-epoll.so
>
> repository/io/netty/netty-all/4.0.23.Final/netty-all-4.0.23.Final.jar|libnetty-transport-native-epoll.so
>
> repository/io/netty/netty-all/4.0.29.Final/netty-all-4.0.29.Final.jar|libnetty-transport-native-epoll.so
>
> repository/io/netty/netty-all/4.0.31.Final/netty-all-4.0.31.Final.jar|libnetty-transport-native-epoll.so
> repository/jline/jline/2.11/jline-2.11.jar|libjansi.so
> repository/jline/jline/2.12.1/jline-2.12.1.jar|libjansi.so
> repository/jline/jline/2.12/jline-2.12.jar|libjansi.so
> repository/jline/jline/2.13/jline-2.13.jar|libjansi.so
> repository/net/java/dev/jna/jna/3.0.9/jna-3.0.9.jar|libjnidispatch.so
> repository/net/java/dev/jna/jna/3.2.2/jna-3.2.2.jar|libjnidispatch.so
> repository/net/java/dev/jna/jna/3.4.0/jna-3.4.0.jar|libjnidispatch.so
> repository/net/java/dev/jna/jna/3.5.2/jna-3.5.2.jar|libjnidispatch.so
> repository/net/java/dev/jna/jna/4.0.0/jna-4.0.0.jar|libjnidispatch.so
> repository/net/java/dev/jna/jna/4.1.0/jna-4.1.0.jar|libjnidispatch.so
> repository/net/jpountz/lz4/lz4/1.1.0/lz4-1.1.0.jar|liblz4-java.so
> repository/net/jpountz/lz4/lz4/1.2.0/lz4-1.2.0.jar|liblz4-java.so
> repository/net/jpountz/lz4/lz4/1.3.0/lz4-1.3.0.jar|liblz4-java.so
>
> repository/org/apache/flink/flink-shaded-hadoop2/0.10.0/flink-shaded-hadoop2-0.10.0.jar|libsnappyjava.so
>
> repository/org/apache/flume/flume-ng-clients/flume-ng-log4jappender/1.6.0/flume-ng-log4jappender-1.6.0-jar-with-dependencies.jar|libsnappyjava.so
>
> repository/org/apache/giraph/giraph-accumulo/1.1.0/giraph-accumulo-1.1.0-jar-with-dependencies.jar|
> libjffi-1.0.so
>
> repository/org/apache/giraph/giraph-core/1.1.0/giraph-core-1.1.0-jar-with-dependencies.jar|
> libjffi-1.0.so
>
> repository/org/apache/giraph/giraph-examples/1.1.0/giraph-examples-1.1.0-jar-with-dependencies.jar|
> libjffi-1.0.so
>
> repository/org/apache/giraph/giraph-gora/1.1.0/giraph-gora-1.1.0-jar-with-dependencies.jar|libsnappyjava.so
>
> repository/org/apache/giraph/giraph-hbase/1.1.0/giraph-hbase-1.1.0-jar-with-dependencies.jar|
> libjffi-1.0.so
>
> repository/org/apache/giraph/giraph-hcatalog/1.1.0/giraph-hcatalog-1.1.0-jar-with-dependencies.jar|
> libjffi-1.0.so
>
> repository/org/apache/giraph/giraph-hive/1.1.0/giraph-hive-1.1.0-jar-with-dependencies.jar|
> libjffi-1.0.so
>
> repository/org/apache/giraph/giraph-rexster-io/1.1.0/giraph-rexster-io-1.1.0-jar-with-dependencies.jar|
> libjffi-1.0.so
>
> repository/org/apache/hadoop/hadoop-common/2.7.1/hadoop-common-2.7.1-javadoc.jar|libhadoop.so
>
> repository/org/apache/hadoop/hadoop-dist/2.7.1/hadoop-dist-2.7.1-javadoc.jar|libhadoop.so
>
> repository/org/apache/hadoop/hadoop-hdfs/2.6.0-cdh5.5.0-SNAPSHOT/hadoop-hdfs-2.6.0-cdh5.5.0-20151012.213120-541.jar|libnetty-transport-native-epoll.so
>
> repository/org/apache/hadoop/hadoop-hdfs/2.6.0-cdh5.5.0-SNAPSHOT/hadoop-hdfs-2.6.0-cdh5.5.0-SNAPSHOT.jar|libnetty-transport-native-epoll.so
>
> repository/org/apache/hadoop/hadoop-hdfs/2.7.1/hadoop-hdfs-2.7.1-javadoc.jar|libhdfs.so
>
> repository/org/apache/hive/hive-jdbc/1.2.1/hive-jdbc-1.2.1-standalone.jar|libjansi.so
>
> repository/org/apache/ignite/ignite-yarn/1.5.0.final/ignite-yarn-1.5.0.final.jar|libsnappyjava.so
>
> repository/org/apache/mahout/mahout-examples/0.11.1/mahout-examples-0.11.1-job.jar|libleveldbjni.so
>
> repository/org/apache/mahout/mahout-mr/0.11.1/mahout-mr-0.11.1-job.jar|libleveldbjni.so
>
> repository/org/apache/phoenix/phoenix-pherf/4.6.0-HBase-0.98/phoenix-pherf-4.6.0-HBase-0.98-jar-with-dependencies.jar|libjansi.so
>
> repository/org/apache/phoenix/phoenix-tracing-webapp/4.6.0-HBase-0.98/phoenix-tracing-webapp-4.6.0-HBase-0.98-runnable.jar|libjansi.so
>
> repository/org/apache/spark/spark-assembly_2.10/1.5.0-cdh5.5.0-SNAPSHOT/spark-assembly_2.10-1.5.0-cdh5.5.0-20151012.192015-86.jar|libjansi.so
>
> repository/org/apache/spark/spark-assembly_2.10/1.5.0-cdh5.5.0-SNAPSHOT/spark-assembly_2.10-1.5.0-cdh5.5.0-SNAPSHOT.jar|libjansi.so
> repository/org/fusesource/jansi/jansi/1.4/jansi-1.4.jar|libjansi.so
> repository/org/fusesource/jansi/jansi/1.7/jansi-1.7.jar|libjansi.so
>
> repository/org/fusesource/leveldbjni/leveldbjni-all/1.8/leveldbjni-all-1.8.jar|libleveldbjni.so
>
> repository/org/gridgain/ignite-shmem/1.0.0/ignite-shmem-1.0.0.jar|libigniteshmem.so
> repository/org/jblas/jblas/1.2.3/jblas-1.2.3.jar|libjblas_arch_flavor.so
> repository/org/jblas/jblas/1.2.4/jblas-1.2.4.jar|libjblas_arch_flavor.so
> repository/org/jruby/jruby-complete/1.6.5/jruby-complete-1.6.5.jar|
> libjffi-1.0.so
> repository/org/jruby/jruby-complete/1.6.8/jruby-complete-1.6.8.jar|
> libjffi-1.0.so
> repository/org/jruby/jruby-complete/1.7.17/jruby-complete-1.7.17.jar|
> libjffi-1.2.so
>
> repository/org/kitesdk/kite-tools/1.1.0/kite-tools-1.1.0-binary.jar|libsnappyjava.so
>
> repository/org/kitesdk/kite-tools/1.1.0/kite-tools-1.1.0-runtime.jar|libsnappyjava.so
>
> repository/org/projectlombok/lombok/1.12.4/lombok-1.12.4.jar|libjnidispatch.so
> repository/org/python/jython-standalone/2.5.2/jython-standalone-2.5.2.jar|
> libjffi-1.0.so
> repository/org/python/jython/2.5.3/jython-2.5.3.jar|libjffi-1.0.so
> repository/org/scala-lang/jline/2.10.4/jline-2.10.4.jar|libjansi.so
>
> repository/org/scala-lang/scala-compiler/2.11.7/scala-compiler-2.11.7.jar|libjansi.so
>
> repository/org/seleniumhq/selenium/selenium-firefox-driver/2.42.2/selenium-firefox-driver-2.42.2.jar|x_ignore_nofocus.so
>
> repository/org/seleniumhq/selenium/selenium-firefox-driver/2.45.0/selenium-firefox-driver-2.45.0.jar|x_ignore_nofocus.so
>
> repository/org/seleniumhq/selenium/selenium-firefox-driver/2.48.2/selenium-firefox-driver-2.48.2.jar|x_ignore_nofocus.so
> repository/org/xerial/snappy/snappy-java/
> 1.0.3.2/snappy-java-1.0.3.2.jar|libsnappyjava.so
>
> repository/org/xerial/snappy/snappy-java/1.0.4.1/snappy-java-1.0.4.1.jar|libsnappyjava.so
>
> repository/org/xerial/snappy/snappy-java/1.0.5.3/snappy-java-1.0.5.3.jar|libsnappyjava.so
>
> repository/org/xerial/snappy/snappy-java/1.0.5.4/snappy-java-1.0.5.4.jar|libsnappyjava.so
>
> repository/org/xerial/snappy/snappy-java/1.0.5/snappy-java-1.0.5.jar|libsnappyjava.so
>
> repository/org/xerial/snappy/snappy-java/1.1.0.1/snappy-java-1.1.0.1.jar|libsnappyjava.so
>
> repository/org/xerial/snappy/snappy-java/1.1.0/snappy-java-1.1.0.jar|libsnappyjava.so
>
> repository/org/xerial/snappy/snappy-java/1.1.1.6/snappy-java-1.1.1.6.jar|libsnappyjava.so
>
> repository/org/xerial/snappy/snappy-java/1.1.1.7/snappy-java-1.1.1.7.jar|libsnappyjava.so
>
>
> ====
>
> I think we have a problem now....
>
>
> Olaf
>
>
> PS: Could you please have a look at BIGTOP-2264 ?
>
>
>
> > Am 17.02.2016 um 21:22 schrieb MrAsanjar . <af...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Excuse my newbie ignorance, but I am a bit confused here. Beside nodejs
> > issue, were there other issues needed to be resolved for ppc support? I
> was
> > not aware there were other brokers. please let me know what needs to be
> > done from my side. Again thanks for all your help.
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> Am 17.02.2016 um 18:47 schrieb Evans Ye <ev...@apache.org>:
> >>>
> >>> Cos and Roman
> >>> Thanks for pushing hard on the 1.1 release!
> >>> The PPC packages are available here:
> >>>
> >>
> https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/ppc64le/job/Bigtop-trunk-packages-ppc64le
> >>>
> >>> Asanjar
> >>> I guess we can not easily put together PPC and the other packages
> >> together
> >>> in same release job because ubuntu-15.04-ppc64le require a ppc slave,
> >> right?
> >>
> >> right.
> >>
> >> Olaf
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: 1.1.0 final steps: [Was: Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>.
Yes, there are a couple of issues all with missing shared libs in jar files.
BIGTOP-2305 and there are a couple of others.
I wrote a tool to systematically search all the missing libs, stay tuned....
These are the shared libs contained in all our maven repository after compile:
-------------
libhadoop.so
libhdfs.so
libibushandler.so
libigniteshmem.so
libjansi.so
libjblas.so
libjblas_arch_flavor.so
libjffi-1.0.so
libjffi-1.2.so
libjnidispatch.so
libjruby-cext.so
libleveldbjni.so
liblz4-java.so
libnetty-transport-native-epoll.so
libsigar.so
libsnappy.so
libsnappyjava.so
x_ignore_nofocus.so
---------------
These are the shared libs grouped by artefact
repository/com/facebook/hiveio/hive-io-exp-core/0.26/hive-io-exp-core-0.26.jar|libsigar.so
repository/com/typesafe/sbt/incremental-compiler/0.13.5/incremental-compiler-0.13.5.jar|libjansi.so
repository/io/netty/netty-all/4.0.21.Final/netty-all-4.0.21.Final.jar|libnetty-transport-native-epoll.so
repository/io/netty/netty-all/4.0.23.Final/netty-all-4.0.23.Final.jar|libnetty-transport-native-epoll.so
repository/io/netty/netty-all/4.0.29.Final/netty-all-4.0.29.Final.jar|libnetty-transport-native-epoll.so
repository/io/netty/netty-all/4.0.31.Final/netty-all-4.0.31.Final.jar|libnetty-transport-native-epoll.so
repository/jline/jline/2.11/jline-2.11.jar|libjansi.so
repository/jline/jline/2.12.1/jline-2.12.1.jar|libjansi.so
repository/jline/jline/2.12/jline-2.12.jar|libjansi.so
repository/jline/jline/2.13/jline-2.13.jar|libjansi.so
repository/net/java/dev/jna/jna/3.0.9/jna-3.0.9.jar|libjnidispatch.so
repository/net/java/dev/jna/jna/3.2.2/jna-3.2.2.jar|libjnidispatch.so
repository/net/java/dev/jna/jna/3.4.0/jna-3.4.0.jar|libjnidispatch.so
repository/net/java/dev/jna/jna/3.5.2/jna-3.5.2.jar|libjnidispatch.so
repository/net/java/dev/jna/jna/4.0.0/jna-4.0.0.jar|libjnidispatch.so
repository/net/java/dev/jna/jna/4.1.0/jna-4.1.0.jar|libjnidispatch.so
repository/net/jpountz/lz4/lz4/1.1.0/lz4-1.1.0.jar|liblz4-java.so
repository/net/jpountz/lz4/lz4/1.2.0/lz4-1.2.0.jar|liblz4-java.so
repository/net/jpountz/lz4/lz4/1.3.0/lz4-1.3.0.jar|liblz4-java.so
repository/org/apache/flink/flink-shaded-hadoop2/0.10.0/flink-shaded-hadoop2-0.10.0.jar|libsnappyjava.so
repository/org/apache/flume/flume-ng-clients/flume-ng-log4jappender/1.6.0/flume-ng-log4jappender-1.6.0-jar-with-dependencies.jar|libsnappyjava.so
repository/org/apache/giraph/giraph-accumulo/1.1.0/giraph-accumulo-1.1.0-jar-with-dependencies.jar|libjffi-1.0.so
repository/org/apache/giraph/giraph-core/1.1.0/giraph-core-1.1.0-jar-with-dependencies.jar|libjffi-1.0.so
repository/org/apache/giraph/giraph-examples/1.1.0/giraph-examples-1.1.0-jar-with-dependencies.jar|libjffi-1.0.so
repository/org/apache/giraph/giraph-gora/1.1.0/giraph-gora-1.1.0-jar-with-dependencies.jar|libsnappyjava.so
repository/org/apache/giraph/giraph-hbase/1.1.0/giraph-hbase-1.1.0-jar-with-dependencies.jar|libjffi-1.0.so
repository/org/apache/giraph/giraph-hcatalog/1.1.0/giraph-hcatalog-1.1.0-jar-with-dependencies.jar|libjffi-1.0.so
repository/org/apache/giraph/giraph-hive/1.1.0/giraph-hive-1.1.0-jar-with-dependencies.jar|libjffi-1.0.so
repository/org/apache/giraph/giraph-rexster-io/1.1.0/giraph-rexster-io-1.1.0-jar-with-dependencies.jar|libjffi-1.0.so
repository/org/apache/hadoop/hadoop-common/2.7.1/hadoop-common-2.7.1-javadoc.jar|libhadoop.so
repository/org/apache/hadoop/hadoop-dist/2.7.1/hadoop-dist-2.7.1-javadoc.jar|libhadoop.so
repository/org/apache/hadoop/hadoop-hdfs/2.6.0-cdh5.5.0-SNAPSHOT/hadoop-hdfs-2.6.0-cdh5.5.0-20151012.213120-541.jar|libnetty-transport-native-epoll.so
repository/org/apache/hadoop/hadoop-hdfs/2.6.0-cdh5.5.0-SNAPSHOT/hadoop-hdfs-2.6.0-cdh5.5.0-SNAPSHOT.jar|libnetty-transport-native-epoll.so
repository/org/apache/hadoop/hadoop-hdfs/2.7.1/hadoop-hdfs-2.7.1-javadoc.jar|libhdfs.so
repository/org/apache/hive/hive-jdbc/1.2.1/hive-jdbc-1.2.1-standalone.jar|libjansi.so
repository/org/apache/ignite/ignite-yarn/1.5.0.final/ignite-yarn-1.5.0.final.jar|libsnappyjava.so
repository/org/apache/mahout/mahout-examples/0.11.1/mahout-examples-0.11.1-job.jar|libleveldbjni.so
repository/org/apache/mahout/mahout-mr/0.11.1/mahout-mr-0.11.1-job.jar|libleveldbjni.so
repository/org/apache/phoenix/phoenix-pherf/4.6.0-HBase-0.98/phoenix-pherf-4.6.0-HBase-0.98-jar-with-dependencies.jar|libjansi.so
repository/org/apache/phoenix/phoenix-tracing-webapp/4.6.0-HBase-0.98/phoenix-tracing-webapp-4.6.0-HBase-0.98-runnable.jar|libjansi.so
repository/org/apache/spark/spark-assembly_2.10/1.5.0-cdh5.5.0-SNAPSHOT/spark-assembly_2.10-1.5.0-cdh5.5.0-20151012.192015-86.jar|libjansi.so
repository/org/apache/spark/spark-assembly_2.10/1.5.0-cdh5.5.0-SNAPSHOT/spark-assembly_2.10-1.5.0-cdh5.5.0-SNAPSHOT.jar|libjansi.so
repository/org/fusesource/jansi/jansi/1.4/jansi-1.4.jar|libjansi.so
repository/org/fusesource/jansi/jansi/1.7/jansi-1.7.jar|libjansi.so
repository/org/fusesource/leveldbjni/leveldbjni-all/1.8/leveldbjni-all-1.8.jar|libleveldbjni.so
repository/org/gridgain/ignite-shmem/1.0.0/ignite-shmem-1.0.0.jar|libigniteshmem.so
repository/org/jblas/jblas/1.2.3/jblas-1.2.3.jar|libjblas_arch_flavor.so
repository/org/jblas/jblas/1.2.4/jblas-1.2.4.jar|libjblas_arch_flavor.so
repository/org/jruby/jruby-complete/1.6.5/jruby-complete-1.6.5.jar|libjffi-1.0.so
repository/org/jruby/jruby-complete/1.6.8/jruby-complete-1.6.8.jar|libjffi-1.0.so
repository/org/jruby/jruby-complete/1.7.17/jruby-complete-1.7.17.jar|libjffi-1.2.so
repository/org/kitesdk/kite-tools/1.1.0/kite-tools-1.1.0-binary.jar|libsnappyjava.so
repository/org/kitesdk/kite-tools/1.1.0/kite-tools-1.1.0-runtime.jar|libsnappyjava.so
repository/org/projectlombok/lombok/1.12.4/lombok-1.12.4.jar|libjnidispatch.so
repository/org/python/jython-standalone/2.5.2/jython-standalone-2.5.2.jar|libjffi-1.0.so
repository/org/python/jython/2.5.3/jython-2.5.3.jar|libjffi-1.0.so
repository/org/scala-lang/jline/2.10.4/jline-2.10.4.jar|libjansi.so
repository/org/scala-lang/scala-compiler/2.11.7/scala-compiler-2.11.7.jar|libjansi.so
repository/org/seleniumhq/selenium/selenium-firefox-driver/2.42.2/selenium-firefox-driver-2.42.2.jar|x_ignore_nofocus.so
repository/org/seleniumhq/selenium/selenium-firefox-driver/2.45.0/selenium-firefox-driver-2.45.0.jar|x_ignore_nofocus.so
repository/org/seleniumhq/selenium/selenium-firefox-driver/2.48.2/selenium-firefox-driver-2.48.2.jar|x_ignore_nofocus.so
repository/org/xerial/snappy/snappy-java/1.0.3.2/snappy-java-1.0.3.2.jar|libsnappyjava.so
repository/org/xerial/snappy/snappy-java/1.0.4.1/snappy-java-1.0.4.1.jar|libsnappyjava.so
repository/org/xerial/snappy/snappy-java/1.0.5.3/snappy-java-1.0.5.3.jar|libsnappyjava.so
repository/org/xerial/snappy/snappy-java/1.0.5.4/snappy-java-1.0.5.4.jar|libsnappyjava.so
repository/org/xerial/snappy/snappy-java/1.0.5/snappy-java-1.0.5.jar|libsnappyjava.so
repository/org/xerial/snappy/snappy-java/1.1.0.1/snappy-java-1.1.0.1.jar|libsnappyjava.so
repository/org/xerial/snappy/snappy-java/1.1.0/snappy-java-1.1.0.jar|libsnappyjava.so
repository/org/xerial/snappy/snappy-java/1.1.1.6/snappy-java-1.1.1.6.jar|libsnappyjava.so
repository/org/xerial/snappy/snappy-java/1.1.1.7/snappy-java-1.1.1.7.jar|libsnappyjava.so
====
I think we have a problem now....
Olaf
PS: Could you please have a look at BIGTOP-2264 ?
> Am 17.02.2016 um 21:22 schrieb MrAsanjar . <af...@gmail.com>:
>
> Excuse my newbie ignorance, but I am a bit confused here. Beside nodejs
> issue, were there other issues needed to be resolved for ppc support? I was
> not aware there were other brokers. please let me know what needs to be
> done from my side. Again thanks for all your help.
> Cheers
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Am 17.02.2016 um 18:47 schrieb Evans Ye <ev...@apache.org>:
>>>
>>> Cos and Roman
>>> Thanks for pushing hard on the 1.1 release!
>>> The PPC packages are available here:
>>>
>> https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/ppc64le/job/Bigtop-trunk-packages-ppc64le
>>>
>>> Asanjar
>>> I guess we can not easily put together PPC and the other packages
>> together
>>> in same release job because ubuntu-15.04-ppc64le require a ppc slave,
>> right?
>>
>> right.
>>
>> Olaf
>>
>>
Re: 1.1.0 final steps: [Was: Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by "MrAsanjar ." <af...@gmail.com>.
Excuse my newbie ignorance, but I am a bit confused here. Beside nodejs
issue, were there other issues needed to be resolved for ppc support? I was
not aware there were other brokers. please let me know what needs to be
done from my side. Again thanks for all your help.
Cheers
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de> wrote:
>
> > Am 17.02.2016 um 18:47 schrieb Evans Ye <ev...@apache.org>:
> >
> > Cos and Roman
> > Thanks for pushing hard on the 1.1 release!
> > The PPC packages are available here:
> >
> https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/ppc64le/job/Bigtop-trunk-packages-ppc64le
> >
> > Asanjar
> > I guess we can not easily put together PPC and the other packages
> together
> > in same release job because ubuntu-15.04-ppc64le require a ppc slave,
> right?
>
> right.
>
> Olaf
>
>
Re: 1.1.0 final steps: [Was: Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>.
> Am 17.02.2016 um 18:47 schrieb Evans Ye <ev...@apache.org>:
>
> Cos and Roman
> Thanks for pushing hard on the 1.1 release!
> The PPC packages are available here:
> https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/ppc64le/job/Bigtop-trunk-packages-ppc64le
>
> Asanjar
> I guess we can not easily put together PPC and the other packages together
> in same release job because ubuntu-15.04-ppc64le require a ppc slave, right?
right.
Olaf
Re: 1.1.0 final steps: [Was: Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Evans Ye <ev...@apache.org>.
Cos and Roman
Thanks for pushing hard on the 1.1 release!
The PPC packages are available here:
https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/ppc64le/job/Bigtop-trunk-packages-ppc64le
Asanjar
I guess we can not easily put together PPC and the other packages together
in same release job because ubuntu-15.04-ppc64le require a ppc slave, right?
2016-02-17 13:40 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> Two things:
> - the packages for ppc 1.1.0 aren't available anywhere. Looks like the job
> you have put together failed. Sorry, I am half across the world and
> dealing
> with a lot right now, so I can not spare any time to fix it
> - you can go ahead and make the announcement. Binary artifacts aren't a
> part
> of the official release. The official release is done a available from
> http://www.apache.org/dist/bigtop/bigtop-1.1.0/
>
> Packages will be posted later - not big of a deal
>
> Cos
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 06:54PM, MrAsanjar . wrote:
> > Roman, thanks man. Let me know when repo will be updated with ppc
> packages.
> > I am at Spark Summit East and would like to make an announcement as soon
> as
> > you give the thumbs up.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > thanks for all! I tested some random packages from the centos-7 repo.
> > > Works like a charm.
> > >
> > > The debian-8 GPG signature can be downloaded from the gpg keyserver,
> works
> > > for me.
> > > I suggest to add a KEYS file with Romans Signing Key 13971DA39475BD5D
> into
> > > http://<mirror>/apache/bigtop/bigtop-1.1.0/
> > >
> > > But anyway, great job, we did it!
> > >
> > > Olaf
> > >
> > >
> > > > Am 16.02.2016 um 17:42 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > Weird indeed. I checked for myself and it was there. Anyway - thanks
> a
> > > bunch
> > > > for your help!
> > > >
> > > > Guys, if you can do some quick sanity tests in addition to what I
> have
> > > done
> > > > earlier - it'd be great! Right after we can do the official
> announcement
> > > of
> > > > the release.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Cos
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 08:34AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > > >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >>> Looks like the repos were published earlier today by Roman (thanks
> > > dude!)
> > > >>> A couple of small nits:
> > > >>> - we still need to add repos/ directory into the dist's
> release/bigtop
> > > (like
> > > >>> we did before)
> > > >>> I have added the repos/ into the release area.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks man! I've pushed the signatures.
> > > >>
> > > >>> - the signing key 9475bd5d doesn't seem to be added to the KEYS,
> nor
> > > is a
> > > >>> part of the repos/ (obviously)
> > > >>
> > > >> This is odd, the key is definitely in the canonical file. See for
> > > yourself:
> > > >>
> > > >> $ rm -rf /tmp/12345 ; mkdir /tmp/12345
> > > >> $ curl https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS >
> > > /tmp/12345/KEYS
> > > >> $ GPG_HOME=/tmp/12345 gpg --import /tmp/12345/KEYS
> > > >> gpg: key 3ADD02D6: "Andrew Bayer (CODE SIGNING KEY)
> > > >> <ab...@apache.org>" not changed
> > > >> gpg: key 9475BD5D: "Roman V Shaposhnik (CODE SIGNING KEY)
> > > >> <rv...@apache.org>" not changed
> > > >> gpg: key 1F27E622: "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <co...@boudnik.org>"
> not
> > > changed
> > > >> gpg: Total number processed: 3
> > > >> gpg: unchanged: 3
> > > >>
> > > >>> I have tried to deploy and quickly test centos and ubuntu in-docker
> > > clusters
> > > >>> and the basic setup seems to be working fine.
> > > >>
> > > >> Cool! Lets see if this key issue is transient on your part.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Roman.
> > >
> > >
>
Re: 1.1.0 final steps: [Was: Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
Two things:
- the packages for ppc 1.1.0 aren't available anywhere. Looks like the job
you have put together failed. Sorry, I am half across the world and dealing
with a lot right now, so I can not spare any time to fix it
- you can go ahead and make the announcement. Binary artifacts aren't a part
of the official release. The official release is done a available from
http://www.apache.org/dist/bigtop/bigtop-1.1.0/
Packages will be posted later - not big of a deal
Cos
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 06:54PM, MrAsanjar . wrote:
> Roman, thanks man. Let me know when repo will be updated with ppc packages.
> I am at Spark Summit East and would like to make an announcement as soon as
> you give the thumbs up.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > thanks for all! I tested some random packages from the centos-7 repo.
> > Works like a charm.
> >
> > The debian-8 GPG signature can be downloaded from the gpg keyserver, works
> > for me.
> > I suggest to add a KEYS file with Romans Signing Key 13971DA39475BD5D into
> > http://<mirror>/apache/bigtop/bigtop-1.1.0/
> >
> > But anyway, great job, we did it!
> >
> > Olaf
> >
> >
> > > Am 16.02.2016 um 17:42 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > Weird indeed. I checked for myself and it was there. Anyway - thanks a
> > bunch
> > > for your help!
> > >
> > > Guys, if you can do some quick sanity tests in addition to what I have
> > done
> > > earlier - it'd be great! Right after we can do the official announcement
> > of
> > > the release.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Cos
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 08:34AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>> Looks like the repos were published earlier today by Roman (thanks
> > dude!)
> > >>> A couple of small nits:
> > >>> - we still need to add repos/ directory into the dist's release/bigtop
> > (like
> > >>> we did before)
> > >>> I have added the repos/ into the release area.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks man! I've pushed the signatures.
> > >>
> > >>> - the signing key 9475bd5d doesn't seem to be added to the KEYS, nor
> > is a
> > >>> part of the repos/ (obviously)
> > >>
> > >> This is odd, the key is definitely in the canonical file. See for
> > yourself:
> > >>
> > >> $ rm -rf /tmp/12345 ; mkdir /tmp/12345
> > >> $ curl https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS >
> > /tmp/12345/KEYS
> > >> $ GPG_HOME=/tmp/12345 gpg --import /tmp/12345/KEYS
> > >> gpg: key 3ADD02D6: "Andrew Bayer (CODE SIGNING KEY)
> > >> <ab...@apache.org>" not changed
> > >> gpg: key 9475BD5D: "Roman V Shaposhnik (CODE SIGNING KEY)
> > >> <rv...@apache.org>" not changed
> > >> gpg: key 1F27E622: "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <co...@boudnik.org>" not
> > changed
> > >> gpg: Total number processed: 3
> > >> gpg: unchanged: 3
> > >>
> > >>> I have tried to deploy and quickly test centos and ubuntu in-docker
> > clusters
> > >>> and the basic setup seems to be working fine.
> > >>
> > >> Cool! Lets see if this key issue is transient on your part.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Roman.
> >
> >
Re: 1.1.0 final steps: [Was: Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by "MrAsanjar ." <af...@gmail.com>.
Roman, thanks man. Let me know when repo will be updated with ppc packages.
I am at Spark Summit East and would like to make an announcement as soon as
you give the thumbs up.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for all! I tested some random packages from the centos-7 repo.
> Works like a charm.
>
> The debian-8 GPG signature can be downloaded from the gpg keyserver, works
> for me.
> I suggest to add a KEYS file with Romans Signing Key 13971DA39475BD5D into
> http://<mirror>/apache/bigtop/bigtop-1.1.0/
>
> But anyway, great job, we did it!
>
> Olaf
>
>
> > Am 16.02.2016 um 17:42 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> >
> > Weird indeed. I checked for myself and it was there. Anyway - thanks a
> bunch
> > for your help!
> >
> > Guys, if you can do some quick sanity tests in addition to what I have
> done
> > earlier - it'd be great! Right after we can do the official announcement
> of
> > the release.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cos
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 08:34AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>> Looks like the repos were published earlier today by Roman (thanks
> dude!)
> >>> A couple of small nits:
> >>> - we still need to add repos/ directory into the dist's release/bigtop
> (like
> >>> we did before)
> >>> I have added the repos/ into the release area.
> >>
> >> Thanks man! I've pushed the signatures.
> >>
> >>> - the signing key 9475bd5d doesn't seem to be added to the KEYS, nor
> is a
> >>> part of the repos/ (obviously)
> >>
> >> This is odd, the key is definitely in the canonical file. See for
> yourself:
> >>
> >> $ rm -rf /tmp/12345 ; mkdir /tmp/12345
> >> $ curl https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS >
> /tmp/12345/KEYS
> >> $ GPG_HOME=/tmp/12345 gpg --import /tmp/12345/KEYS
> >> gpg: key 3ADD02D6: "Andrew Bayer (CODE SIGNING KEY)
> >> <ab...@apache.org>" not changed
> >> gpg: key 9475BD5D: "Roman V Shaposhnik (CODE SIGNING KEY)
> >> <rv...@apache.org>" not changed
> >> gpg: key 1F27E622: "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <co...@boudnik.org>" not
> changed
> >> gpg: Total number processed: 3
> >> gpg: unchanged: 3
> >>
> >>> I have tried to deploy and quickly test centos and ubuntu in-docker
> clusters
> >>> and the basic setup seems to be working fine.
> >>
> >> Cool! Lets see if this key issue is transient on your part.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Roman.
>
>
Re: 1.1.0 final steps: [Was: Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>.
Hi,
thanks for all! I tested some random packages from the centos-7 repo. Works like a charm.
The debian-8 GPG signature can be downloaded from the gpg keyserver, works for me.
I suggest to add a KEYS file with Romans Signing Key 13971DA39475BD5D into http://<mirror>/apache/bigtop/bigtop-1.1.0/
But anyway, great job, we did it!
Olaf
> Am 16.02.2016 um 17:42 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
>
> Weird indeed. I checked for myself and it was there. Anyway - thanks a bunch
> for your help!
>
> Guys, if you can do some quick sanity tests in addition to what I have done
> earlier - it'd be great! Right after we can do the official announcement of
> the release.
>
> Thanks,
> Cos
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 08:34AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Looks like the repos were published earlier today by Roman (thanks dude!)
>>> A couple of small nits:
>>> - we still need to add repos/ directory into the dist's release/bigtop (like
>>> we did before)
>>> I have added the repos/ into the release area.
>>
>> Thanks man! I've pushed the signatures.
>>
>>> - the signing key 9475bd5d doesn't seem to be added to the KEYS, nor is a
>>> part of the repos/ (obviously)
>>
>> This is odd, the key is definitely in the canonical file. See for yourself:
>>
>> $ rm -rf /tmp/12345 ; mkdir /tmp/12345
>> $ curl https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS > /tmp/12345/KEYS
>> $ GPG_HOME=/tmp/12345 gpg --import /tmp/12345/KEYS
>> gpg: key 3ADD02D6: "Andrew Bayer (CODE SIGNING KEY)
>> <ab...@apache.org>" not changed
>> gpg: key 9475BD5D: "Roman V Shaposhnik (CODE SIGNING KEY)
>> <rv...@apache.org>" not changed
>> gpg: key 1F27E622: "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <co...@boudnik.org>" not changed
>> gpg: Total number processed: 3
>> gpg: unchanged: 3
>>
>>> I have tried to deploy and quickly test centos and ubuntu in-docker clusters
>>> and the basic setup seems to be working fine.
>>
>> Cool! Lets see if this key issue is transient on your part.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
Re: 1.1.0 final steps: [Was: Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
Weird indeed. I checked for myself and it was there. Anyway - thanks a bunch
for your help!
Guys, if you can do some quick sanity tests in addition to what I have done
earlier - it'd be great! Right after we can do the official announcement of
the release.
Thanks,
Cos
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 08:34AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Looks like the repos were published earlier today by Roman (thanks dude!)
> > A couple of small nits:
> > - we still need to add repos/ directory into the dist's release/bigtop (like
> > we did before)
> > I have added the repos/ into the release area.
>
> Thanks man! I've pushed the signatures.
>
> > - the signing key 9475bd5d doesn't seem to be added to the KEYS, nor is a
> > part of the repos/ (obviously)
>
> This is odd, the key is definitely in the canonical file. See for yourself:
>
> $ rm -rf /tmp/12345 ; mkdir /tmp/12345
> $ curl https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS > /tmp/12345/KEYS
> $ GPG_HOME=/tmp/12345 gpg --import /tmp/12345/KEYS
> gpg: key 3ADD02D6: "Andrew Bayer (CODE SIGNING KEY)
> <ab...@apache.org>" not changed
> gpg: key 9475BD5D: "Roman V Shaposhnik (CODE SIGNING KEY)
> <rv...@apache.org>" not changed
> gpg: key 1F27E622: "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <co...@boudnik.org>" not changed
> gpg: Total number processed: 3
> gpg: unchanged: 3
>
> > I have tried to deploy and quickly test centos and ubuntu in-docker clusters
> > and the basic setup seems to be working fine.
>
> Cool! Lets see if this key issue is transient on your part.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
Re: 1.1.0 final steps: [Was: Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> Looks like the repos were published earlier today by Roman (thanks dude!)
> A couple of small nits:
> - we still need to add repos/ directory into the dist's release/bigtop (like
> we did before)
> I have added the repos/ into the release area.
Thanks man! I've pushed the signatures.
> - the signing key 9475bd5d doesn't seem to be added to the KEYS, nor is a
> part of the repos/ (obviously)
This is odd, the key is definitely in the canonical file. See for yourself:
$ rm -rf /tmp/12345 ; mkdir /tmp/12345
$ curl https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS > /tmp/12345/KEYS
$ GPG_HOME=/tmp/12345 gpg --import /tmp/12345/KEYS
gpg: key 3ADD02D6: "Andrew Bayer (CODE SIGNING KEY)
<ab...@apache.org>" not changed
gpg: key 9475BD5D: "Roman V Shaposhnik (CODE SIGNING KEY)
<rv...@apache.org>" not changed
gpg: key 1F27E622: "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <co...@boudnik.org>" not changed
gpg: Total number processed: 3
gpg: unchanged: 3
> I have tried to deploy and quickly test centos and ubuntu in-docker clusters
> and the basic setup seems to be working fine.
Cool! Lets see if this key issue is transient on your part.
Thanks,
Roman.
Re: 1.1.0 final steps: [Was: Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
Looks like the repos were published earlier today by Roman (thanks dude!)
A couple of small nits:
- we still need to add repos/ directory into the dist's release/bigtop (like
we did before)
- the signing key 9475bd5d doesn't seem to be added to the KEYS, nor is a
part of the repos/ (obviously)
I have tried to deploy and quickly test centos and ubuntu in-docker clusters
and the basic setup seems to be working fine.
Cos
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:44PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> Just wanted to say that thanks to Cos I'm now fully empowered to sign
> and upload binaries tomorrow!
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> > Hi Guys!
> >
> > the valentine day is almost over and I think it would only
> > be fair if Bigtop 1.1.0 release were to become my other
> > valentine ;-)
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> Roman,
> >>
> >> thank to Evans uncanny foresight the packages are all done and waiting to be
> >> signed. Please grab them here
> >> https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/Releases/job/Bigtop-1.1.0/11/
> >
> > This is pretty awesome. Thanks Evans! One little complication is that
> > in all this excitement I seem to be no longer able to login into our
> > Jenkis machine. Can anyone please add my ssh public key (you can
> > find it at the bottom of this email in both plain ASCII and also uuencoded
> > to make sure line-endings/etc. don't bite us). My plan is to do the
> > signing and s3
> > upload from that machine. Speaking of which...
> >
> >> and proceed as usual. If you need credentials for our new s3 buckets ping me
> >> or Andrew so we can share them with you.
> >
> > Yes. I also do need those. Can you please send them to me encoded to
> > the GPG key http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x13971DA39475BD5D ?
> >
> >> Once the repos are provisioned I will push updated site and send the releases
> >> announcement.
> >
> > Sounds like a plan!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> > ssh-rsa AAAAB3NzaC1yc2EAAAADAQABAAABAQC1TmmEe5EwTxhlLua8ctA7DShbeLRifY3kFVQ6bQqKSF28YaIscjaBxXUDCEmh5PnUnKeDlY4Y/j9Gjp56c9SpLji6jqTycxOlcWtZzn8yrFmueFHFbR8AeUm1w/Ju6Dc/eGf2A0yygV8ejGwWPsRLIJGfiUMFedQ83Xes0W14mYA3knE2rN74xkmGwRk33/CIS+CXWdfm4CjIyhinlWH2rOBp4pP97pb4kUhRCSWJoDPYff/wXcUP753bc7zDeW6BGvWx/0Q1ZV+NaNV50lvQ9DAsYK5i47Cpi48KauEfQRdrYbbOT7/UwJyl2CdEruA8dbV8Lm7sz16BU/Xr0BeB
> > rvs@apache.org
> >
> >
Re: 1.1.0 final steps: [Was: Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
Just wanted to say that thanks to Cos I'm now fully empowered to sign
and upload binaries tomorrow!
Thanks,
Roman.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> Hi Guys!
>
> the valentine day is almost over and I think it would only
> be fair if Bigtop 1.1.0 release were to become my other
> valentine ;-)
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Roman,
>>
>> thank to Evans uncanny foresight the packages are all done and waiting to be
>> signed. Please grab them here
>> https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/Releases/job/Bigtop-1.1.0/11/
>
> This is pretty awesome. Thanks Evans! One little complication is that
> in all this excitement I seem to be no longer able to login into our
> Jenkis machine. Can anyone please add my ssh public key (you can
> find it at the bottom of this email in both plain ASCII and also uuencoded
> to make sure line-endings/etc. don't bite us). My plan is to do the
> signing and s3
> upload from that machine. Speaking of which...
>
>> and proceed as usual. If you need credentials for our new s3 buckets ping me
>> or Andrew so we can share them with you.
>
> Yes. I also do need those. Can you please send them to me encoded to
> the GPG key http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x13971DA39475BD5D ?
>
>> Once the repos are provisioned I will push updated site and send the releases
>> announcement.
>
> Sounds like a plan!
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ssh-rsa AAAAB3NzaC1yc2EAAAADAQABAAABAQC1TmmEe5EwTxhlLua8ctA7DShbeLRifY3kFVQ6bQqKSF28YaIscjaBxXUDCEmh5PnUnKeDlY4Y/j9Gjp56c9SpLji6jqTycxOlcWtZzn8yrFmueFHFbR8AeUm1w/Ju6Dc/eGf2A0yygV8ejGwWPsRLIJGfiUMFedQ83Xes0W14mYA3knE2rN74xkmGwRk33/CIS+CXWdfm4CjIyhinlWH2rOBp4pP97pb4kUhRCSWJoDPYff/wXcUP753bc7zDeW6BGvWx/0Q1ZV+NaNV50lvQ9DAsYK5i47Cpi48KauEfQRdrYbbOT7/UwJyl2CdEruA8dbV8Lm7sz16BU/Xr0BeB
> rvs@apache.org
>
>
Re: 1.1.0 final steps: [Was: Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
Hi Guys!
the valentine day is almost over and I think it would only
be fair if Bigtop 1.1.0 release were to become my other
valentine ;-)
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> Roman,
>
> thank to Evans uncanny foresight the packages are all done and waiting to be
> signed. Please grab them here
> https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/Releases/job/Bigtop-1.1.0/11/
This is pretty awesome. Thanks Evans! One little complication is that
in all this excitement I seem to be no longer able to login into our
Jenkis machine. Can anyone please add my ssh public key (you can
find it at the bottom of this email in both plain ASCII and also uuencoded
to make sure line-endings/etc. don't bite us). My plan is to do the
signing and s3
upload from that machine. Speaking of which...
> and proceed as usual. If you need credentials for our new s3 buckets ping me
> or Andrew so we can share them with you.
Yes. I also do need those. Can you please send them to me encoded to
the GPG key http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x13971DA39475BD5D ?
> Once the repos are provisioned I will push updated site and send the releases
> announcement.
Sounds like a plan!
Thanks,
Roman.
ssh-rsa AAAAB3NzaC1yc2EAAAADAQABAAABAQC1TmmEe5EwTxhlLua8ctA7DShbeLRifY3kFVQ6bQqKSF28YaIscjaBxXUDCEmh5PnUnKeDlY4Y/j9Gjp56c9SpLji6jqTycxOlcWtZzn8yrFmueFHFbR8AeUm1w/Ju6Dc/eGf2A0yygV8ejGwWPsRLIJGfiUMFedQ83Xes0W14mYA3knE2rN74xkmGwRk33/CIS+CXWdfm4CjIyhinlWH2rOBp4pP97pb4kUhRCSWJoDPYff/wXcUP753bc7zDeW6BGvWx/0Q1ZV+NaNV50lvQ9DAsYK5i47Cpi48KauEfQRdrYbbOT7/UwJyl2CdEruA8dbV8Lm7sz16BU/Xr0BeB
rvs@apache.org
begin 644 rvs.pub
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M5TIO1%!99F8O=UAC55`W-3-B8S=Z1&57-D)'=E=X+S!1,5I6*TYA3E8U,&QV
M43E$07-92S5I-#=#<&DT.$MA=45F45)D<EEB8D]4-R]5=TIY;#)#9$5R=4$X
D9&)6.$QM-W-Z,39"52]8<C!"94(@<G9S0&%P86-H92YO<F<*
`
end
1.1.0 final steps: [Was: Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1]
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
Guys,
I have moved the bits to the dist/release, published the repo, pushed new tag
to the protected rel/ location, and updated the Reporter with the release date
(also update the How to Release wiki to reflect current process).
Roman,
thank to Evans uncanny foresight the packages are all done and waiting to be
signed. Please grab them here
https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/Releases/job/Bigtop-1.1.0/11/
and proceed as usual. If you need credentials for our new s3 buckets ping me
or Andrew so we can share them with you.
Once the repos are provisioned I will push updated site and send the releases
announcement.
Cheers,
Cos
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 06:04PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> I can definitely help with binary artifacts, but it'll have to be over the
> [long] weekend.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 12:38AM, Evans Ye wrote:
> >> It looks like BIGTOP-2318 is not a big deal.
> >> I'd say go :)
> >
> > I'd say so too ;) I will wait a couple more days in case there late votes,
> > then close the thread and publish the release. I might need help with
> > signing/publishing the binary artifacts, as I am on 4G cell-link and
> > transferring a bunch of repos around might not be fast.
> >
> > Rvs, you were volunteering IIRC? ;)
> >
> > Cos
> >
> >> 2016-02-11 0:19 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> >>
> >> > +1
> >> >
> >> > the RC1 looks good besides of the extra file issue already fixed on master
> >> >
> >> > I am not sure how to proceed with this. Shall we consider the original
> >> > [VOTE]
> >> > thread valid and simply call the tally? Or there's a feeling that we need
> >> > to
> >> > restart to vote and make it more formal than it is right now?
> >> >
> >> > Cos
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 11:56PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> >> > > I think it's OK to just update the KEYS file.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Here's my evaluation result of 1.1.0 RC1:
> >> > >
> >> > > 1. sha1, md5, signature verified
> >> > > 2. build bigtop/slaves 1.1.0 images
> >> > > 3. use above 1.1.0 slave images to build 1.1.0 packages
> >> > > 4. run Docker Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
> >> > > 5. run Vagrant Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
> >> > > 6. run hadoop and pig smoke tests
> >> > > 7. run hadoop itest
> >> > >
> >> > > Surely I didn't cover all the features, but the core feature I touched
> >> > all
> >> > > works well.
> >> > > Hence here's my +1 to the RC1.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 2016-02-07 15:23 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Argh... the keys again. CB588E12 is one of my subs, but it is DSA key
> >> > and
> >> > > > we
> >> > > > had a lot of troubles with the RPMs (because RPM only works with
> >> > "secure"
> >> > > > RSA
> >> > > > keys). Eventually, for package signing I've used FA08B173, which is a
> >> > part
> >> > > > of
> >> > > > the KEYS file.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Technically, speaking there's no rule dictating to sign release
> >> > artifacts
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > binary package with the same key. So, if having two keys is ok, then I
> >> > will
> >> > > > need to add CB588E12 to the KEYS as well. Or alternatively, I (or
> >> > someone
> >> > > > else) would need to do RC2 with correct signature.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Cos
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 03:15PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> >> > > > > Hi Olaf, did you get the key from keyserver?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
> >> > > > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> >> > > > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID
> >> > > > CB588E12
> >> > > > > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > $ gpg --keyserver pgpkeys.mit.edu --recv-key CB588E12 # Took a
> >> > while to
> >> > > > > finish
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
> >> > > > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> >> > > > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID
> >> > > > CB588E12
> >> > > > > gpg: Good signature from "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <
> >> > cos@boudnik.org>"
> >> > > > > gpg: aka "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <cos@apache.org
> >> > >"
> >> > > > > gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> >> > > > > gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to
> >> > the
> >> > > > > owner.
> >> > > > > Primary key fingerprint: 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980
> >> > 1F27
> >> > > > E622
> >> > > > > Subkey fingerprint: 88C5 8332 D1A9 6A83 F9B3 2776 7A7C 8596
> >> > CB58
> >> > > > 8E12
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > 2016-02-05 17:01 GMT+08:00 Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > hi,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > the signature file is made with a key CB588E12 , not contained in
> >> > KEYS.
> >> > > > > > Or missed I something important?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Olaf
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Am 31.01.2016 um 05:35 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <
> >> > cos@apache.org>:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > It fixes the following issues:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed
> >> > on
> >> > > > > > Wednesday,
> >> > > > > > > February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote
> >> > with
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop
> >> > > > > > > [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
> >> > > > > > > [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache
> >> > > > > > Bigtop, because...
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Source and binary files:
> >> > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Maven staging repo:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the
> >> > release:
> >> > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Thanks!
> >> > > > > > > Cos
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
Re: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
I can definitely help with binary artifacts, but it'll have to be over the
[long] weekend.
Thanks,
Roman.
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 12:38AM, Evans Ye wrote:
>> It looks like BIGTOP-2318 is not a big deal.
>> I'd say go :)
>
> I'd say so too ;) I will wait a couple more days in case there late votes,
> then close the thread and publish the release. I might need help with
> signing/publishing the binary artifacts, as I am on 4G cell-link and
> transferring a bunch of repos around might not be fast.
>
> Rvs, you were volunteering IIRC? ;)
>
> Cos
>
>> 2016-02-11 0:19 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
>>
>> > +1
>> >
>> > the RC1 looks good besides of the extra file issue already fixed on master
>> >
>> > I am not sure how to proceed with this. Shall we consider the original
>> > [VOTE]
>> > thread valid and simply call the tally? Or there's a feeling that we need
>> > to
>> > restart to vote and make it more formal than it is right now?
>> >
>> > Cos
>> >
>> > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 11:56PM, Evans Ye wrote:
>> > > I think it's OK to just update the KEYS file.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Here's my evaluation result of 1.1.0 RC1:
>> > >
>> > > 1. sha1, md5, signature verified
>> > > 2. build bigtop/slaves 1.1.0 images
>> > > 3. use above 1.1.0 slave images to build 1.1.0 packages
>> > > 4. run Docker Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
>> > > 5. run Vagrant Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
>> > > 6. run hadoop and pig smoke tests
>> > > 7. run hadoop itest
>> > >
>> > > Surely I didn't cover all the features, but the core feature I touched
>> > all
>> > > works well.
>> > > Hence here's my +1 to the RC1.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 2016-02-07 15:23 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
>> > >
>> > > > Argh... the keys again. CB588E12 is one of my subs, but it is DSA key
>> > and
>> > > > we
>> > > > had a lot of troubles with the RPMs (because RPM only works with
>> > "secure"
>> > > > RSA
>> > > > keys). Eventually, for package signing I've used FA08B173, which is a
>> > part
>> > > > of
>> > > > the KEYS file.
>> > > >
>> > > > Technically, speaking there's no rule dictating to sign release
>> > artifacts
>> > > > and
>> > > > binary package with the same key. So, if having two keys is ok, then I
>> > will
>> > > > need to add CB588E12 to the KEYS as well. Or alternatively, I (or
>> > someone
>> > > > else) would need to do RC2 with correct signature.
>> > > >
>> > > > Cos
>> > > >
>> > > > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 03:15PM, Evans Ye wrote:
>> > > > > Hi Olaf, did you get the key from keyserver?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
>> > > > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
>> > > > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID
>> > > > CB588E12
>> > > > > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
>> > > > >
>> > > > > $ gpg --keyserver pgpkeys.mit.edu --recv-key CB588E12 # Took a
>> > while to
>> > > > > finish
>> > > > >
>> > > > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
>> > > > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
>> > > > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID
>> > > > CB588E12
>> > > > > gpg: Good signature from "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <
>> > cos@boudnik.org>"
>> > > > > gpg: aka "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <cos@apache.org
>> > >"
>> > > > > gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
>> > > > > gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to
>> > the
>> > > > > owner.
>> > > > > Primary key fingerprint: 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980
>> > 1F27
>> > > > E622
>> > > > > Subkey fingerprint: 88C5 8332 D1A9 6A83 F9B3 2776 7A7C 8596
>> > CB58
>> > > > 8E12
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 2016-02-05 17:01 GMT+08:00 Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > hi,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > the signature file is made with a key CB588E12 , not contained in
>> > KEYS.
>> > > > > > Or missed I something important?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Olaf
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Am 31.01.2016 um 05:35 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <
>> > cos@apache.org>:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > It fixes the following issues:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > >
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed
>> > on
>> > > > > > Wednesday,
>> > > > > > > February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote
>> > with
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop
>> > > > > > > [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
>> > > > > > > [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache
>> > > > > > Bigtop, because...
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Source and binary files:
>> > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Maven staging repo:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > >
>> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the
>> > release:
>> > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Thanks!
>> > > > > > > Cos
>> > > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
Re: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 12:38AM, Evans Ye wrote:
> It looks like BIGTOP-2318 is not a big deal.
> I'd say go :)
I'd say so too ;) I will wait a couple more days in case there late votes,
then close the thread and publish the release. I might need help with
signing/publishing the binary artifacts, as I am on 4G cell-link and
transferring a bunch of repos around might not be fast.
Rvs, you were volunteering IIRC? ;)
Cos
> 2016-02-11 0:19 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
>
> > +1
> >
> > the RC1 looks good besides of the extra file issue already fixed on master
> >
> > I am not sure how to proceed with this. Shall we consider the original
> > [VOTE]
> > thread valid and simply call the tally? Or there's a feeling that we need
> > to
> > restart to vote and make it more formal than it is right now?
> >
> > Cos
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 11:56PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > > I think it's OK to just update the KEYS file.
> > >
> > >
> > > Here's my evaluation result of 1.1.0 RC1:
> > >
> > > 1. sha1, md5, signature verified
> > > 2. build bigtop/slaves 1.1.0 images
> > > 3. use above 1.1.0 slave images to build 1.1.0 packages
> > > 4. run Docker Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
> > > 5. run Vagrant Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
> > > 6. run hadoop and pig smoke tests
> > > 7. run hadoop itest
> > >
> > > Surely I didn't cover all the features, but the core feature I touched
> > all
> > > works well.
> > > Hence here's my +1 to the RC1.
> > >
> > >
> > > 2016-02-07 15:23 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > Argh... the keys again. CB588E12 is one of my subs, but it is DSA key
> > and
> > > > we
> > > > had a lot of troubles with the RPMs (because RPM only works with
> > "secure"
> > > > RSA
> > > > keys). Eventually, for package signing I've used FA08B173, which is a
> > part
> > > > of
> > > > the KEYS file.
> > > >
> > > > Technically, speaking there's no rule dictating to sign release
> > artifacts
> > > > and
> > > > binary package with the same key. So, if having two keys is ok, then I
> > will
> > > > need to add CB588E12 to the KEYS as well. Or alternatively, I (or
> > someone
> > > > else) would need to do RC2 with correct signature.
> > > >
> > > > Cos
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 03:15PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > > > > Hi Olaf, did you get the key from keyserver?
> > > > >
> > > > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
> > > > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> > > > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID
> > > > CB588E12
> > > > > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
> > > > >
> > > > > $ gpg --keyserver pgpkeys.mit.edu --recv-key CB588E12 # Took a
> > while to
> > > > > finish
> > > > >
> > > > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
> > > > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> > > > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID
> > > > CB588E12
> > > > > gpg: Good signature from "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <
> > cos@boudnik.org>"
> > > > > gpg: aka "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <cos@apache.org
> > >"
> > > > > gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> > > > > gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to
> > the
> > > > > owner.
> > > > > Primary key fingerprint: 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980
> > 1F27
> > > > E622
> > > > > Subkey fingerprint: 88C5 8332 D1A9 6A83 F9B3 2776 7A7C 8596
> > CB58
> > > > 8E12
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2016-02-05 17:01 GMT+08:00 Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the signature file is made with a key CB588E12 , not contained in
> > KEYS.
> > > > > > Or missed I something important?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Olaf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Am 31.01.2016 um 05:35 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <
> > cos@apache.org>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It fixes the following issues:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed
> > on
> > > > > > Wednesday,
> > > > > > > February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote
> > with
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop
> > > > > > > [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
> > > > > > > [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache
> > > > > > Bigtop, because...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Source and binary files:
> > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maven staging repo:
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the
> > release:
> > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > Cos
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
Re: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1
Posted by Evans Ye <ev...@apache.org>.
It looks like BIGTOP-2318 is not a big deal.
I'd say go :)
2016-02-11 0:19 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> +1
>
> the RC1 looks good besides of the extra file issue already fixed on master
>
> I am not sure how to proceed with this. Shall we consider the original
> [VOTE]
> thread valid and simply call the tally? Or there's a feeling that we need
> to
> restart to vote and make it more formal than it is right now?
>
> Cos
>
> On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 11:56PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > I think it's OK to just update the KEYS file.
> >
> >
> > Here's my evaluation result of 1.1.0 RC1:
> >
> > 1. sha1, md5, signature verified
> > 2. build bigtop/slaves 1.1.0 images
> > 3. use above 1.1.0 slave images to build 1.1.0 packages
> > 4. run Docker Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
> > 5. run Vagrant Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
> > 6. run hadoop and pig smoke tests
> > 7. run hadoop itest
> >
> > Surely I didn't cover all the features, but the core feature I touched
> all
> > works well.
> > Hence here's my +1 to the RC1.
> >
> >
> > 2016-02-07 15:23 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Argh... the keys again. CB588E12 is one of my subs, but it is DSA key
> and
> > > we
> > > had a lot of troubles with the RPMs (because RPM only works with
> "secure"
> > > RSA
> > > keys). Eventually, for package signing I've used FA08B173, which is a
> part
> > > of
> > > the KEYS file.
> > >
> > > Technically, speaking there's no rule dictating to sign release
> artifacts
> > > and
> > > binary package with the same key. So, if having two keys is ok, then I
> will
> > > need to add CB588E12 to the KEYS as well. Or alternatively, I (or
> someone
> > > else) would need to do RC2 with correct signature.
> > >
> > > Cos
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 03:15PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > > > Hi Olaf, did you get the key from keyserver?
> > > >
> > > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
> > > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> > > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID
> > > CB588E12
> > > > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
> > > >
> > > > $ gpg --keyserver pgpkeys.mit.edu --recv-key CB588E12 # Took a
> while to
> > > > finish
> > > >
> > > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
> > > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> > > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID
> > > CB588E12
> > > > gpg: Good signature from "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <
> cos@boudnik.org>"
> > > > gpg: aka "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <cos@apache.org
> >"
> > > > gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> > > > gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to
> the
> > > > owner.
> > > > Primary key fingerprint: 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980
> 1F27
> > > E622
> > > > Subkey fingerprint: 88C5 8332 D1A9 6A83 F9B3 2776 7A7C 8596
> CB58
> > > 8E12
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2016-02-05 17:01 GMT+08:00 Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>:
> > > >
> > > > > hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > the signature file is made with a key CB588E12 , not contained in
> KEYS.
> > > > > Or missed I something important?
> > > > >
> > > > > Olaf
> > > > >
> > > > > > Am 31.01.2016 um 05:35 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <
> cos@apache.org>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It fixes the following issues:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed
> on
> > > > > Wednesday,
> > > > > > February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote
> with
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop
> > > > > > [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
> > > > > > [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache
> > > > > Bigtop, because...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Source and binary files:
> > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maven staging repo:
> > > > > >
> > >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the
> release:
> > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > Cos
> > > > >
> > >
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
+1
the RC1 looks good besides of the extra file issue already fixed on master
I am not sure how to proceed with this. Shall we consider the original [VOTE]
thread valid and simply call the tally? Or there's a feeling that we need to
restart to vote and make it more formal than it is right now?
Cos
On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 11:56PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> I think it's OK to just update the KEYS file.
>
>
> Here's my evaluation result of 1.1.0 RC1:
>
> 1. sha1, md5, signature verified
> 2. build bigtop/slaves 1.1.0 images
> 3. use above 1.1.0 slave images to build 1.1.0 packages
> 4. run Docker Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
> 5. run Vagrant Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
> 6. run hadoop and pig smoke tests
> 7. run hadoop itest
>
> Surely I didn't cover all the features, but the core feature I touched all
> works well.
> Hence here's my +1 to the RC1.
>
>
> 2016-02-07 15:23 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
>
> > Argh... the keys again. CB588E12 is one of my subs, but it is DSA key and
> > we
> > had a lot of troubles with the RPMs (because RPM only works with "secure"
> > RSA
> > keys). Eventually, for package signing I've used FA08B173, which is a part
> > of
> > the KEYS file.
> >
> > Technically, speaking there's no rule dictating to sign release artifacts
> > and
> > binary package with the same key. So, if having two keys is ok, then I will
> > need to add CB588E12 to the KEYS as well. Or alternatively, I (or someone
> > else) would need to do RC2 with correct signature.
> >
> > Cos
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 03:15PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > > Hi Olaf, did you get the key from keyserver?
> > >
> > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
> > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID
> > CB588E12
> > > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
> > >
> > > $ gpg --keyserver pgpkeys.mit.edu --recv-key CB588E12 # Took a while to
> > > finish
> > >
> > > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
> > bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> > > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID
> > CB588E12
> > > gpg: Good signature from "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <co...@boudnik.org>"
> > > gpg: aka "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <co...@apache.org>"
> > > gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> > > gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
> > > owner.
> > > Primary key fingerprint: 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27
> > E622
> > > Subkey fingerprint: 88C5 8332 D1A9 6A83 F9B3 2776 7A7C 8596 CB58
> > 8E12
> > >
> > >
> > > 2016-02-05 17:01 GMT+08:00 Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>:
> > >
> > > > hi,
> > > >
> > > > the signature file is made with a key CB588E12 , not contained in KEYS.
> > > > Or missed I something important?
> > > >
> > > > Olaf
> > > >
> > > > > Am 31.01.2016 um 05:35 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
> > > > >
> > > > > It fixes the following issues:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
> > > > >
> > > > > The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed on
> > > > Wednesday,
> > > > > February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote with
> > > > >
> > > > > [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop
> > > > > [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
> > > > > [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache
> > > > Bigtop, because...
> > > > >
> > > > > Source and binary files:
> > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
> > > > >
> > > > > Maven staging repo:
> > > > >
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
> > > > >
> > > > > The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
> > > > >
> > > > > Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > Cos
> > > >
> >
Re: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1
Posted by Evans Ye <ev...@apache.org>.
I think it's OK to just update the KEYS file.
Here's my evaluation result of 1.1.0 RC1:
1. sha1, md5, signature verified
2. build bigtop/slaves 1.1.0 images
3. use above 1.1.0 slave images to build 1.1.0 packages
4. run Docker Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
5. run Vagrant Provisioner to deploy 1.1.0 packages
6. run hadoop and pig smoke tests
7. run hadoop itest
Surely I didn't cover all the features, but the core feature I touched all
works well.
Hence here's my +1 to the RC1.
2016-02-07 15:23 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> Argh... the keys again. CB588E12 is one of my subs, but it is DSA key and
> we
> had a lot of troubles with the RPMs (because RPM only works with "secure"
> RSA
> keys). Eventually, for package signing I've used FA08B173, which is a part
> of
> the KEYS file.
>
> Technically, speaking there's no rule dictating to sign release artifacts
> and
> binary package with the same key. So, if having two keys is ok, then I will
> need to add CB588E12 to the KEYS as well. Or alternatively, I (or someone
> else) would need to do RC2 with correct signature.
>
> Cos
>
> On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 03:15PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> > Hi Olaf, did you get the key from keyserver?
> >
> > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
> bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID
> CB588E12
> > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
> >
> > $ gpg --keyserver pgpkeys.mit.edu --recv-key CB588E12 # Took a while to
> > finish
> >
> > $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc
> bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> > gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID
> CB588E12
> > gpg: Good signature from "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <co...@boudnik.org>"
> > gpg: aka "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <co...@apache.org>"
> > gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> > gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
> > owner.
> > Primary key fingerprint: 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27
> E622
> > Subkey fingerprint: 88C5 8332 D1A9 6A83 F9B3 2776 7A7C 8596 CB58
> 8E12
> >
> >
> > 2016-02-05 17:01 GMT+08:00 Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>:
> >
> > > hi,
> > >
> > > the signature file is made with a key CB588E12 , not contained in KEYS.
> > > Or missed I something important?
> > >
> > > Olaf
> > >
> > > > Am 31.01.2016 um 05:35 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
> > > >
> > > > It fixes the following issues:
> > > >
> > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
> > > >
> > > > The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed on
> > > Wednesday,
> > > > February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote with
> > > >
> > > > [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop
> > > > [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
> > > > [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache
> > > Bigtop, because...
> > > >
> > > > Source and binary files:
> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
> > > >
> > > > Maven staging repo:
> > > >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
> > > >
> > > > The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
> > > >
> > > > Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > Cos
> > >
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
Argh... the keys again. CB588E12 is one of my subs, but it is DSA key and we
had a lot of troubles with the RPMs (because RPM only works with "secure" RSA
keys). Eventually, for package signing I've used FA08B173, which is a part of
the KEYS file.
Technically, speaking there's no rule dictating to sign release artifacts and
binary package with the same key. So, if having two keys is ok, then I will
need to add CB588E12 to the KEYS as well. Or alternatively, I (or someone
else) would need to do RC2 with correct signature.
Cos
On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 03:15PM, Evans Ye wrote:
> Hi Olaf, did you get the key from keyserver?
>
> $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID CB588E12
> gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
>
> $ gpg --keyserver pgpkeys.mit.edu --recv-key CB588E12 # Took a while to
> finish
>
> $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID CB588E12
> gpg: Good signature from "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <co...@boudnik.org>"
> gpg: aka "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <co...@apache.org>"
> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
> owner.
> Primary key fingerprint: 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
> Subkey fingerprint: 88C5 8332 D1A9 6A83 F9B3 2776 7A7C 8596 CB58 8E12
>
>
> 2016-02-05 17:01 GMT+08:00 Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>:
>
> > hi,
> >
> > the signature file is made with a key CB588E12 , not contained in KEYS.
> > Or missed I something important?
> >
> > Olaf
> >
> > > Am 31.01.2016 um 05:35 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
> > >
> > > It fixes the following issues:
> > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
> > >
> > > The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed on
> > Wednesday,
> > > February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote with
> > >
> > > [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop
> > > [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
> > > [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache
> > Bigtop, because...
> > >
> > > Source and binary files:
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
> > >
> > > Maven staging repo:
> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
> > >
> > > The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
> > >
> > > Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Cos
> >
Re: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1
Posted by Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>.
Ok, I did use pgp.mit.edu wrongly. Now I found the key by other means.
Olaf
> Am 07.02.2016 um 08:15 schrieb Evans Ye <ev...@apache.org>:
>
> Hi Olaf, did you get the key from keyserver?
>
> $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID CB588E12
> gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
>
> $ gpg --keyserver pgpkeys.mit.edu --recv-key CB588E12 # Took a while to
> finish
>
> $ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
> gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID CB588E12
> gpg: Good signature from "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <co...@boudnik.org>"
> gpg: aka "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <co...@apache.org>"
> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
> owner.
> Primary key fingerprint: 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
> Subkey fingerprint: 88C5 8332 D1A9 6A83 F9B3 2776 7A7C 8596 CB58 8E12
>
>
> 2016-02-05 17:01 GMT+08:00 Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>:
>
>> hi,
>>
>> the signature file is made with a key CB588E12 , not contained in KEYS.
>> Or missed I something important?
>>
>> Olaf
>>
>>> Am 31.01.2016 um 05:35 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
>>>
>>> This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
>>>
>>> It fixes the following issues:
>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
>>>
>>> The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed on
>> Wednesday,
>>> February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote with
>>>
>>> [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop
>>> [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
>>> [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache
>> Bigtop, because...
>>>
>>> Source and binary files:
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
>>>
>>> Maven staging repo:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
>>>
>>> The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
>>>
>>> Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Cos
>>
Re: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1
Posted by Evans Ye <ev...@apache.org>.
Hi Olaf, did you get the key from keyserver?
$ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID CB588E12
gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
$ gpg --keyserver pgpkeys.mit.edu --recv-key CB588E12 # Took a while to
finish
$ gpg --verify bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz.asc bigtop-1.1.0-project.tar.gz
gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 31 12:09:46 2016 CST using DSA key ID CB588E12
gpg: Good signature from "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <co...@boudnik.org>"
gpg: aka "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <co...@apache.org>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
owner.
Primary key fingerprint: 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
Subkey fingerprint: 88C5 8332 D1A9 6A83 F9B3 2776 7A7C 8596 CB58 8E12
2016-02-05 17:01 GMT+08:00 Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>:
> hi,
>
> the signature file is made with a key CB588E12 , not contained in KEYS.
> Or missed I something important?
>
> Olaf
>
> > Am 31.01.2016 um 05:35 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> >
> > This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
> >
> > It fixes the following issues:
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
> >
> > The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed on
> Wednesday,
> > February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote with
> >
> > [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop
> > [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
> > [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache
> Bigtop, because...
> >
> > Source and binary files:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
> >
> > Maven staging repo:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
> >
> > The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
> >
> > Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Cos
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Bigtop version 1.1.0-rc1
Posted by Olaf Flebbe <of...@oflebbe.de>.
hi,
the signature file is made with a key CB588E12 , not contained in KEYS.
Or missed I something important?
Olaf
> Am 31.01.2016 um 05:35 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
>
> This is the vote for release 1.1.0 of Apache Bigtop.
>
> It fixes the following issues:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311420&version=12329714
>
> The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed on Wednesday,
> February 3rd, 2016 at noon PDT. Please download, test and vote with
>
> [ ] +1, accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop
> [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
> [ ] -1, do not accept rc1 as the official 1.1.0 release of Apache Bigtop, because...
>
> Source and binary files:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bigtop/1.1.0-rc1
>
> Maven staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebigtop-1006
>
> The git tag to be voted upon is release-1.1.0
>
> Bigtop's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS
>
> Thanks!
> Cos