You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org by Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org> on 2020/02/25 19:17:32 UTC
[VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Hi folks,
Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0.
RC Release artifacts are available at :
http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
The RC tag in git is here:
https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
And my public key is at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
*This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm IST.*
For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
"-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
-Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
My +1 to start.
-Vinay
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>.
Hello everyone.
RC0 has been canceled.
Since issues mentioned above are already fixed now, soon I will create RC1
and re-create VOTE thread.
Thanks for trying out RC,
-Vinay
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:41 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Vinay
> Thanx for driving the release.
> Verified checksums and tried building from source.
> Everything seems to be working fine.
> But I feel the concerns regarding licences are valid.
> IMO we should fix them and include HADOOP-16895 too in the release
>
> -Ayush
>
> > On 29-Feb-2020, at 1:45 AM, Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16895 jira created for
> > handling LICENCE and NOTICEs
> > PR also has been raised for a proposal. Please validate
> > https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/6
> >
> > -Vinay
> >
> >
> >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:48 PM Vinayakumar B <vinayakumarb@apache.org
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Elek for detailed verification.
> >>
> >> Please find inline replies.
> >>
> >> -Vinay
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
> >>> hard work...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
> >>>
> >>> 2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are
> >>> fine
> >>>
> >>> 3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
> >>> it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
> >>> tar file.
> >>>
> >>> Since dev-support/create-release script and assembly file is copied
> from
> >> hadoop-repo, I can find this issue exits in hadoop source release
> packages
> >> as well. ex: I checked 3.1.2 and 2.10 src packages.
> >> I will raise a Jira and fix this for both hadoop and thirdparty.
> >>
> >> 4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
> >>> Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
> >>> the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
> >>>
> >>> Again, NOTICE.txt was copied from Hadoop and kept as is. I will create
> a
> >> jira to decide about NOTICE and LICENSEs
> >>
> >> 5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
> >>> unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
> >>>
> >>> We can decide in the Jira whether NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary to
> be
> >> used or not.
> >>
> >> 6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
> >>> artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
> >>> from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar
> META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
> >>>
> >>
> >> I observed that there is one more file "META-INF/DEPENDENCIES" generated
> >> by shade plugin, which have reference to shaded artifacts and poniting
> to
> >> link of the original artifact LICENSE. I think this should be sufficient
> >> about protobuf's original license.
> >> IMO, "META-INF/LICENSE.txt" should point to current project's LICENSE,
> >> which in-turn can have contents/pointers of dependents' licenses.
> Siimilar
> >> approach followed in hadoop-shaded-client jars.
> >>
> >> hadoop's artifacts also will be uploaded to maven repo during release,
> >> which doesnot carry all LICENSE files in artifacts. It just says "See
> >> licenses/ for text of these licenses" which doesnot exist in artifact.
> May
> >> be we need to fix this too.
> >>
> >> 7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
> >>> files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would
> help
> >>> to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Again, this is from create-release script. will update the script.
> >>
> >> Thanks again to work on this,
> >>> Marton
> >>>
> >>> ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
> >>> these are blocking and I might be wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> IMO, none of these should be blocking and can be handled before next
> >> release. Still if someone feels this should be fixed and RC should be
> cut
> >> again, I am open to it.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
> >>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty
> >>> 1.0.0.
> >>>>
> >>>> RC Release artifacts are available at :
> >>>>
> >>>
> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
> >>>>
> >>>> Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> >>>>
> >>>> The RC tag in git is here:
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
> >>>>
> >>>> And my public key is at:
> >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
> >>>>
> >>>> *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm
> >>> IST.*
> >>>>
> >>>> For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
> >>>> "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> >>>> -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
> >>>>
> >>>> My +1 to start.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Vinay
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>.
Hello everyone.
RC0 has been canceled.
Since issues mentioned above are already fixed now, soon I will create RC1
and re-create VOTE thread.
Thanks for trying out RC,
-Vinay
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:41 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Vinay
> Thanx for driving the release.
> Verified checksums and tried building from source.
> Everything seems to be working fine.
> But I feel the concerns regarding licences are valid.
> IMO we should fix them and include HADOOP-16895 too in the release
>
> -Ayush
>
> > On 29-Feb-2020, at 1:45 AM, Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16895 jira created for
> > handling LICENCE and NOTICEs
> > PR also has been raised for a proposal. Please validate
> > https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/6
> >
> > -Vinay
> >
> >
> >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:48 PM Vinayakumar B <vinayakumarb@apache.org
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Elek for detailed verification.
> >>
> >> Please find inline replies.
> >>
> >> -Vinay
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
> >>> hard work...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
> >>>
> >>> 2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are
> >>> fine
> >>>
> >>> 3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
> >>> it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
> >>> tar file.
> >>>
> >>> Since dev-support/create-release script and assembly file is copied
> from
> >> hadoop-repo, I can find this issue exits in hadoop source release
> packages
> >> as well. ex: I checked 3.1.2 and 2.10 src packages.
> >> I will raise a Jira and fix this for both hadoop and thirdparty.
> >>
> >> 4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
> >>> Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
> >>> the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
> >>>
> >>> Again, NOTICE.txt was copied from Hadoop and kept as is. I will create
> a
> >> jira to decide about NOTICE and LICENSEs
> >>
> >> 5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
> >>> unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
> >>>
> >>> We can decide in the Jira whether NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary to
> be
> >> used or not.
> >>
> >> 6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
> >>> artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
> >>> from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar
> META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
> >>>
> >>
> >> I observed that there is one more file "META-INF/DEPENDENCIES" generated
> >> by shade plugin, which have reference to shaded artifacts and poniting
> to
> >> link of the original artifact LICENSE. I think this should be sufficient
> >> about protobuf's original license.
> >> IMO, "META-INF/LICENSE.txt" should point to current project's LICENSE,
> >> which in-turn can have contents/pointers of dependents' licenses.
> Siimilar
> >> approach followed in hadoop-shaded-client jars.
> >>
> >> hadoop's artifacts also will be uploaded to maven repo during release,
> >> which doesnot carry all LICENSE files in artifacts. It just says "See
> >> licenses/ for text of these licenses" which doesnot exist in artifact.
> May
> >> be we need to fix this too.
> >>
> >> 7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
> >>> files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would
> help
> >>> to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Again, this is from create-release script. will update the script.
> >>
> >> Thanks again to work on this,
> >>> Marton
> >>>
> >>> ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
> >>> these are blocking and I might be wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> IMO, none of these should be blocking and can be handled before next
> >> release. Still if someone feels this should be fixed and RC should be
> cut
> >> again, I am open to it.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
> >>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty
> >>> 1.0.0.
> >>>>
> >>>> RC Release artifacts are available at :
> >>>>
> >>>
> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
> >>>>
> >>>> Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> >>>>
> >>>> The RC tag in git is here:
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
> >>>>
> >>>> And my public key is at:
> >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
> >>>>
> >>>> *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm
> >>> IST.*
> >>>>
> >>>> For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
> >>>> "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> >>>> -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
> >>>>
> >>>> My +1 to start.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Vinay
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>.
Hello everyone.
RC0 has been canceled.
Since issues mentioned above are already fixed now, soon I will create RC1
and re-create VOTE thread.
Thanks for trying out RC,
-Vinay
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:41 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Vinay
> Thanx for driving the release.
> Verified checksums and tried building from source.
> Everything seems to be working fine.
> But I feel the concerns regarding licences are valid.
> IMO we should fix them and include HADOOP-16895 too in the release
>
> -Ayush
>
> > On 29-Feb-2020, at 1:45 AM, Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16895 jira created for
> > handling LICENCE and NOTICEs
> > PR also has been raised for a proposal. Please validate
> > https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/6
> >
> > -Vinay
> >
> >
> >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:48 PM Vinayakumar B <vinayakumarb@apache.org
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Elek for detailed verification.
> >>
> >> Please find inline replies.
> >>
> >> -Vinay
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
> >>> hard work...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
> >>>
> >>> 2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are
> >>> fine
> >>>
> >>> 3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
> >>> it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
> >>> tar file.
> >>>
> >>> Since dev-support/create-release script and assembly file is copied
> from
> >> hadoop-repo, I can find this issue exits in hadoop source release
> packages
> >> as well. ex: I checked 3.1.2 and 2.10 src packages.
> >> I will raise a Jira and fix this for both hadoop and thirdparty.
> >>
> >> 4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
> >>> Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
> >>> the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
> >>>
> >>> Again, NOTICE.txt was copied from Hadoop and kept as is. I will create
> a
> >> jira to decide about NOTICE and LICENSEs
> >>
> >> 5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
> >>> unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
> >>>
> >>> We can decide in the Jira whether NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary to
> be
> >> used or not.
> >>
> >> 6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
> >>> artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
> >>> from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar
> META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
> >>>
> >>
> >> I observed that there is one more file "META-INF/DEPENDENCIES" generated
> >> by shade plugin, which have reference to shaded artifacts and poniting
> to
> >> link of the original artifact LICENSE. I think this should be sufficient
> >> about protobuf's original license.
> >> IMO, "META-INF/LICENSE.txt" should point to current project's LICENSE,
> >> which in-turn can have contents/pointers of dependents' licenses.
> Siimilar
> >> approach followed in hadoop-shaded-client jars.
> >>
> >> hadoop's artifacts also will be uploaded to maven repo during release,
> >> which doesnot carry all LICENSE files in artifacts. It just says "See
> >> licenses/ for text of these licenses" which doesnot exist in artifact.
> May
> >> be we need to fix this too.
> >>
> >> 7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
> >>> files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would
> help
> >>> to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Again, this is from create-release script. will update the script.
> >>
> >> Thanks again to work on this,
> >>> Marton
> >>>
> >>> ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
> >>> these are blocking and I might be wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> IMO, none of these should be blocking and can be handled before next
> >> release. Still if someone feels this should be fixed and RC should be
> cut
> >> again, I am open to it.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
> >>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty
> >>> 1.0.0.
> >>>>
> >>>> RC Release artifacts are available at :
> >>>>
> >>>
> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
> >>>>
> >>>> Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> >>>>
> >>>> The RC tag in git is here:
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
> >>>>
> >>>> And my public key is at:
> >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
> >>>>
> >>>> *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm
> >>> IST.*
> >>>>
> >>>> For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
> >>>> "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> >>>> -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
> >>>>
> >>>> My +1 to start.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Vinay
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>.
Hello everyone.
RC0 has been canceled.
Since issues mentioned above are already fixed now, soon I will create RC1
and re-create VOTE thread.
Thanks for trying out RC,
-Vinay
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:41 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Vinay
> Thanx for driving the release.
> Verified checksums and tried building from source.
> Everything seems to be working fine.
> But I feel the concerns regarding licences are valid.
> IMO we should fix them and include HADOOP-16895 too in the release
>
> -Ayush
>
> > On 29-Feb-2020, at 1:45 AM, Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16895 jira created for
> > handling LICENCE and NOTICEs
> > PR also has been raised for a proposal. Please validate
> > https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/6
> >
> > -Vinay
> >
> >
> >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:48 PM Vinayakumar B <vinayakumarb@apache.org
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Elek for detailed verification.
> >>
> >> Please find inline replies.
> >>
> >> -Vinay
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
> >>> hard work...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
> >>>
> >>> 2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are
> >>> fine
> >>>
> >>> 3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
> >>> it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
> >>> tar file.
> >>>
> >>> Since dev-support/create-release script and assembly file is copied
> from
> >> hadoop-repo, I can find this issue exits in hadoop source release
> packages
> >> as well. ex: I checked 3.1.2 and 2.10 src packages.
> >> I will raise a Jira and fix this for both hadoop and thirdparty.
> >>
> >> 4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
> >>> Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
> >>> the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
> >>>
> >>> Again, NOTICE.txt was copied from Hadoop and kept as is. I will create
> a
> >> jira to decide about NOTICE and LICENSEs
> >>
> >> 5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
> >>> unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
> >>>
> >>> We can decide in the Jira whether NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary to
> be
> >> used or not.
> >>
> >> 6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
> >>> artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
> >>> from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar
> META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
> >>>
> >>
> >> I observed that there is one more file "META-INF/DEPENDENCIES" generated
> >> by shade plugin, which have reference to shaded artifacts and poniting
> to
> >> link of the original artifact LICENSE. I think this should be sufficient
> >> about protobuf's original license.
> >> IMO, "META-INF/LICENSE.txt" should point to current project's LICENSE,
> >> which in-turn can have contents/pointers of dependents' licenses.
> Siimilar
> >> approach followed in hadoop-shaded-client jars.
> >>
> >> hadoop's artifacts also will be uploaded to maven repo during release,
> >> which doesnot carry all LICENSE files in artifacts. It just says "See
> >> licenses/ for text of these licenses" which doesnot exist in artifact.
> May
> >> be we need to fix this too.
> >>
> >> 7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
> >>> files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would
> help
> >>> to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Again, this is from create-release script. will update the script.
> >>
> >> Thanks again to work on this,
> >>> Marton
> >>>
> >>> ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
> >>> these are blocking and I might be wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> IMO, none of these should be blocking and can be handled before next
> >> release. Still if someone feels this should be fixed and RC should be
> cut
> >> again, I am open to it.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
> >>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty
> >>> 1.0.0.
> >>>>
> >>>> RC Release artifacts are available at :
> >>>>
> >>>
> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
> >>>>
> >>>> Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> >>>>
> >>>> The RC tag in git is here:
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
> >>>>
> >>>> And my public key is at:
> >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
> >>>>
> >>>> *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm
> >>> IST.*
> >>>>
> >>>> For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
> >>>> "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> >>>> -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
> >>>>
> >>>> My +1 to start.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Vinay
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com>.
Hi Vinay
Thanx for driving the release.
Verified checksums and tried building from source.
Everything seems to be working fine.
But I feel the concerns regarding licences are valid.
IMO we should fix them and include HADOOP-16895 too in the release
-Ayush
> On 29-Feb-2020, at 1:45 AM, Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16895 jira created for
> handling LICENCE and NOTICEs
> PR also has been raised for a proposal. Please validate
> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/6
>
> -Vinay
>
>
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:48 PM Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Elek for detailed verification.
>>
>> Please find inline replies.
>>
>> -Vinay
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
>>> hard work...
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
>>>
>>> 2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are
>>> fine
>>>
>>> 3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
>>> it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
>>> tar file.
>>>
>>> Since dev-support/create-release script and assembly file is copied from
>> hadoop-repo, I can find this issue exits in hadoop source release packages
>> as well. ex: I checked 3.1.2 and 2.10 src packages.
>> I will raise a Jira and fix this for both hadoop and thirdparty.
>>
>> 4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
>>> Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
>>> the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
>>>
>>> Again, NOTICE.txt was copied from Hadoop and kept as is. I will create a
>> jira to decide about NOTICE and LICENSEs
>>
>> 5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
>>> unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
>>>
>>> We can decide in the Jira whether NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary to be
>> used or not.
>>
>> 6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
>>> artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
>>> from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
>>>
>>
>> I observed that there is one more file "META-INF/DEPENDENCIES" generated
>> by shade plugin, which have reference to shaded artifacts and poniting to
>> link of the original artifact LICENSE. I think this should be sufficient
>> about protobuf's original license.
>> IMO, "META-INF/LICENSE.txt" should point to current project's LICENSE,
>> which in-turn can have contents/pointers of dependents' licenses. Siimilar
>> approach followed in hadoop-shaded-client jars.
>>
>> hadoop's artifacts also will be uploaded to maven repo during release,
>> which doesnot carry all LICENSE files in artifacts. It just says "See
>> licenses/ for text of these licenses" which doesnot exist in artifact. May
>> be we need to fix this too.
>>
>> 7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
>>> files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would help
>>> to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
>>>
>>>
>> Again, this is from create-release script. will update the script.
>>
>> Thanks again to work on this,
>>> Marton
>>>
>>> ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
>>> these are blocking and I might be wrong.
>>>
>>>
>> IMO, none of these should be blocking and can be handled before next
>> release. Still if someone feels this should be fixed and RC should be cut
>> again, I am open to it.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
>>>>
>>>> I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty
>>> 1.0.0.
>>>>
>>>> RC Release artifacts are available at :
>>>>
>>> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
>>>>
>>>> Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
>>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>>>>
>>>> The RC tag in git is here:
>>>> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
>>>>
>>>> And my public key is at:
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
>>>>
>>>> *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm
>>> IST.*
>>>>
>>>> For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
>>>> "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
>>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>>>> -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
>>>>
>>>> My +1 to start.
>>>>
>>>> -Vinay
>>>>
>>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com>.
Hi Vinay
Thanx for driving the release.
Verified checksums and tried building from source.
Everything seems to be working fine.
But I feel the concerns regarding licences are valid.
IMO we should fix them and include HADOOP-16895 too in the release
-Ayush
> On 29-Feb-2020, at 1:45 AM, Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16895 jira created for
> handling LICENCE and NOTICEs
> PR also has been raised for a proposal. Please validate
> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/6
>
> -Vinay
>
>
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:48 PM Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Elek for detailed verification.
>>
>> Please find inline replies.
>>
>> -Vinay
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
>>> hard work...
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
>>>
>>> 2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are
>>> fine
>>>
>>> 3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
>>> it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
>>> tar file.
>>>
>>> Since dev-support/create-release script and assembly file is copied from
>> hadoop-repo, I can find this issue exits in hadoop source release packages
>> as well. ex: I checked 3.1.2 and 2.10 src packages.
>> I will raise a Jira and fix this for both hadoop and thirdparty.
>>
>> 4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
>>> Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
>>> the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
>>>
>>> Again, NOTICE.txt was copied from Hadoop and kept as is. I will create a
>> jira to decide about NOTICE and LICENSEs
>>
>> 5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
>>> unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
>>>
>>> We can decide in the Jira whether NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary to be
>> used or not.
>>
>> 6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
>>> artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
>>> from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
>>>
>>
>> I observed that there is one more file "META-INF/DEPENDENCIES" generated
>> by shade plugin, which have reference to shaded artifacts and poniting to
>> link of the original artifact LICENSE. I think this should be sufficient
>> about protobuf's original license.
>> IMO, "META-INF/LICENSE.txt" should point to current project's LICENSE,
>> which in-turn can have contents/pointers of dependents' licenses. Siimilar
>> approach followed in hadoop-shaded-client jars.
>>
>> hadoop's artifacts also will be uploaded to maven repo during release,
>> which doesnot carry all LICENSE files in artifacts. It just says "See
>> licenses/ for text of these licenses" which doesnot exist in artifact. May
>> be we need to fix this too.
>>
>> 7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
>>> files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would help
>>> to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
>>>
>>>
>> Again, this is from create-release script. will update the script.
>>
>> Thanks again to work on this,
>>> Marton
>>>
>>> ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
>>> these are blocking and I might be wrong.
>>>
>>>
>> IMO, none of these should be blocking and can be handled before next
>> release. Still if someone feels this should be fixed and RC should be cut
>> again, I am open to it.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
>>>>
>>>> I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty
>>> 1.0.0.
>>>>
>>>> RC Release artifacts are available at :
>>>>
>>> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
>>>>
>>>> Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
>>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>>>>
>>>> The RC tag in git is here:
>>>> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
>>>>
>>>> And my public key is at:
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
>>>>
>>>> *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm
>>> IST.*
>>>>
>>>> For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
>>>> "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
>>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>>>> -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
>>>>
>>>> My +1 to start.
>>>>
>>>> -Vinay
>>>>
>>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mapreduce-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: mapreduce-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com>.
Hi Vinay
Thanx for driving the release.
Verified checksums and tried building from source.
Everything seems to be working fine.
But I feel the concerns regarding licences are valid.
IMO we should fix them and include HADOOP-16895 too in the release
-Ayush
> On 29-Feb-2020, at 1:45 AM, Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16895 jira created for
> handling LICENCE and NOTICEs
> PR also has been raised for a proposal. Please validate
> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/6
>
> -Vinay
>
>
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:48 PM Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Elek for detailed verification.
>>
>> Please find inline replies.
>>
>> -Vinay
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
>>> hard work...
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
>>>
>>> 2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are
>>> fine
>>>
>>> 3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
>>> it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
>>> tar file.
>>>
>>> Since dev-support/create-release script and assembly file is copied from
>> hadoop-repo, I can find this issue exits in hadoop source release packages
>> as well. ex: I checked 3.1.2 and 2.10 src packages.
>> I will raise a Jira and fix this for both hadoop and thirdparty.
>>
>> 4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
>>> Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
>>> the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
>>>
>>> Again, NOTICE.txt was copied from Hadoop and kept as is. I will create a
>> jira to decide about NOTICE and LICENSEs
>>
>> 5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
>>> unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
>>>
>>> We can decide in the Jira whether NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary to be
>> used or not.
>>
>> 6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
>>> artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
>>> from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
>>>
>>
>> I observed that there is one more file "META-INF/DEPENDENCIES" generated
>> by shade plugin, which have reference to shaded artifacts and poniting to
>> link of the original artifact LICENSE. I think this should be sufficient
>> about protobuf's original license.
>> IMO, "META-INF/LICENSE.txt" should point to current project's LICENSE,
>> which in-turn can have contents/pointers of dependents' licenses. Siimilar
>> approach followed in hadoop-shaded-client jars.
>>
>> hadoop's artifacts also will be uploaded to maven repo during release,
>> which doesnot carry all LICENSE files in artifacts. It just says "See
>> licenses/ for text of these licenses" which doesnot exist in artifact. May
>> be we need to fix this too.
>>
>> 7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
>>> files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would help
>>> to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
>>>
>>>
>> Again, this is from create-release script. will update the script.
>>
>> Thanks again to work on this,
>>> Marton
>>>
>>> ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
>>> these are blocking and I might be wrong.
>>>
>>>
>> IMO, none of these should be blocking and can be handled before next
>> release. Still if someone feels this should be fixed and RC should be cut
>> again, I am open to it.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
>>>>
>>>> I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty
>>> 1.0.0.
>>>>
>>>> RC Release artifacts are available at :
>>>>
>>> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
>>>>
>>>> Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
>>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>>>>
>>>> The RC tag in git is here:
>>>> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
>>>>
>>>> And my public key is at:
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
>>>>
>>>> *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm
>>> IST.*
>>>>
>>>> For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
>>>> "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
>>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>>>> -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
>>>>
>>>> My +1 to start.
>>>>
>>>> -Vinay
>>>>
>>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com>.
Hi Vinay
Thanx for driving the release.
Verified checksums and tried building from source.
Everything seems to be working fine.
But I feel the concerns regarding licences are valid.
IMO we should fix them and include HADOOP-16895 too in the release
-Ayush
> On 29-Feb-2020, at 1:45 AM, Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16895 jira created for
> handling LICENCE and NOTICEs
> PR also has been raised for a proposal. Please validate
> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/6
>
> -Vinay
>
>
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:48 PM Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Elek for detailed verification.
>>
>> Please find inline replies.
>>
>> -Vinay
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
>>> hard work...
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
>>>
>>> 2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are
>>> fine
>>>
>>> 3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
>>> it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
>>> tar file.
>>>
>>> Since dev-support/create-release script and assembly file is copied from
>> hadoop-repo, I can find this issue exits in hadoop source release packages
>> as well. ex: I checked 3.1.2 and 2.10 src packages.
>> I will raise a Jira and fix this for both hadoop and thirdparty.
>>
>> 4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
>>> Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
>>> the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
>>>
>>> Again, NOTICE.txt was copied from Hadoop and kept as is. I will create a
>> jira to decide about NOTICE and LICENSEs
>>
>> 5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
>>> unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
>>>
>>> We can decide in the Jira whether NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary to be
>> used or not.
>>
>> 6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
>>> artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
>>> from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
>>>
>>
>> I observed that there is one more file "META-INF/DEPENDENCIES" generated
>> by shade plugin, which have reference to shaded artifacts and poniting to
>> link of the original artifact LICENSE. I think this should be sufficient
>> about protobuf's original license.
>> IMO, "META-INF/LICENSE.txt" should point to current project's LICENSE,
>> which in-turn can have contents/pointers of dependents' licenses. Siimilar
>> approach followed in hadoop-shaded-client jars.
>>
>> hadoop's artifacts also will be uploaded to maven repo during release,
>> which doesnot carry all LICENSE files in artifacts. It just says "See
>> licenses/ for text of these licenses" which doesnot exist in artifact. May
>> be we need to fix this too.
>>
>> 7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
>>> files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would help
>>> to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
>>>
>>>
>> Again, this is from create-release script. will update the script.
>>
>> Thanks again to work on this,
>>> Marton
>>>
>>> ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
>>> these are blocking and I might be wrong.
>>>
>>>
>> IMO, none of these should be blocking and can be handled before next
>> release. Still if someone feels this should be fixed and RC should be cut
>> again, I am open to it.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
>>>>
>>>> I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty
>>> 1.0.0.
>>>>
>>>> RC Release artifacts are available at :
>>>>
>>> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
>>>>
>>>> Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
>>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>>>>
>>>> The RC tag in git is here:
>>>> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
>>>>
>>>> And my public key is at:
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
>>>>
>>>> *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm
>>> IST.*
>>>>
>>>> For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
>>>> "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
>>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>>>> -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
>>>>
>>>> My +1 to start.
>>>>
>>>> -Vinay
>>>>
>>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16895 jira created for
handling LICENCE and NOTICEs
PR also has been raised for a proposal. Please validate
https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/6
-Vinay
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:48 PM Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Thanks Elek for detailed verification.
>
> Please find inline replies.
>
> -Vinay
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
>> hard work...
>>
>>
>> 1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
>>
>> 2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are
>> fine
>>
>> 3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
>> it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
>> tar file.
>>
>> Since dev-support/create-release script and assembly file is copied from
> hadoop-repo, I can find this issue exits in hadoop source release packages
> as well. ex: I checked 3.1.2 and 2.10 src packages.
> I will raise a Jira and fix this for both hadoop and thirdparty.
>
> 4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
>> Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
>> the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
>>
>> Again, NOTICE.txt was copied from Hadoop and kept as is. I will create a
> jira to decide about NOTICE and LICENSEs
>
> 5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
>> unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
>>
>> We can decide in the Jira whether NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary to be
> used or not.
>
> 6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
>> artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
>> from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
>>
>
> I observed that there is one more file "META-INF/DEPENDENCIES" generated
> by shade plugin, which have reference to shaded artifacts and poniting to
> link of the original artifact LICENSE. I think this should be sufficient
> about protobuf's original license.
> IMO, "META-INF/LICENSE.txt" should point to current project's LICENSE,
> which in-turn can have contents/pointers of dependents' licenses. Siimilar
> approach followed in hadoop-shaded-client jars.
>
> hadoop's artifacts also will be uploaded to maven repo during release,
> which doesnot carry all LICENSE files in artifacts. It just says "See
> licenses/ for text of these licenses" which doesnot exist in artifact. May
> be we need to fix this too.
>
> 7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
>> files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would help
>> to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
>>
>>
> Again, this is from create-release script. will update the script.
>
> Thanks again to work on this,
>> Marton
>>
>> ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
>> these are blocking and I might be wrong.
>>
>>
> IMO, none of these should be blocking and can be handled before next
> release. Still if someone feels this should be fixed and RC should be cut
> again, I am open to it.
>
> Thanks.
>
>>
>>
>> On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
>> > Hi folks,
>> >
>> > Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
>> >
>> > I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty
>> 1.0.0.
>> >
>> > RC Release artifacts are available at :
>> >
>> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
>> >
>> > Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
>> >
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>> >
>> > The RC tag in git is here:
>> > https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
>> >
>> > And my public key is at:
>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
>> >
>> > *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm
>> IST.*
>> >
>> > For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
>> > "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
>> >
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>> > -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
>> >
>> > My +1 to start.
>> >
>> > -Vinay
>> >
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16895 jira created for
handling LICENCE and NOTICEs
PR also has been raised for a proposal. Please validate
https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/6
-Vinay
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:48 PM Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Thanks Elek for detailed verification.
>
> Please find inline replies.
>
> -Vinay
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
>> hard work...
>>
>>
>> 1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
>>
>> 2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are
>> fine
>>
>> 3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
>> it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
>> tar file.
>>
>> Since dev-support/create-release script and assembly file is copied from
> hadoop-repo, I can find this issue exits in hadoop source release packages
> as well. ex: I checked 3.1.2 and 2.10 src packages.
> I will raise a Jira and fix this for both hadoop and thirdparty.
>
> 4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
>> Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
>> the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
>>
>> Again, NOTICE.txt was copied from Hadoop and kept as is. I will create a
> jira to decide about NOTICE and LICENSEs
>
> 5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
>> unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
>>
>> We can decide in the Jira whether NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary to be
> used or not.
>
> 6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
>> artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
>> from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
>>
>
> I observed that there is one more file "META-INF/DEPENDENCIES" generated
> by shade plugin, which have reference to shaded artifacts and poniting to
> link of the original artifact LICENSE. I think this should be sufficient
> about protobuf's original license.
> IMO, "META-INF/LICENSE.txt" should point to current project's LICENSE,
> which in-turn can have contents/pointers of dependents' licenses. Siimilar
> approach followed in hadoop-shaded-client jars.
>
> hadoop's artifacts also will be uploaded to maven repo during release,
> which doesnot carry all LICENSE files in artifacts. It just says "See
> licenses/ for text of these licenses" which doesnot exist in artifact. May
> be we need to fix this too.
>
> 7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
>> files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would help
>> to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
>>
>>
> Again, this is from create-release script. will update the script.
>
> Thanks again to work on this,
>> Marton
>>
>> ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
>> these are blocking and I might be wrong.
>>
>>
> IMO, none of these should be blocking and can be handled before next
> release. Still if someone feels this should be fixed and RC should be cut
> again, I am open to it.
>
> Thanks.
>
>>
>>
>> On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
>> > Hi folks,
>> >
>> > Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
>> >
>> > I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty
>> 1.0.0.
>> >
>> > RC Release artifacts are available at :
>> >
>> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
>> >
>> > Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
>> >
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>> >
>> > The RC tag in git is here:
>> > https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
>> >
>> > And my public key is at:
>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
>> >
>> > *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm
>> IST.*
>> >
>> > For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
>> > "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
>> >
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>> > -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
>> >
>> > My +1 to start.
>> >
>> > -Vinay
>> >
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16895 jira created for
handling LICENCE and NOTICEs
PR also has been raised for a proposal. Please validate
https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/6
-Vinay
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:48 PM Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Thanks Elek for detailed verification.
>
> Please find inline replies.
>
> -Vinay
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
>> hard work...
>>
>>
>> 1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
>>
>> 2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are
>> fine
>>
>> 3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
>> it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
>> tar file.
>>
>> Since dev-support/create-release script and assembly file is copied from
> hadoop-repo, I can find this issue exits in hadoop source release packages
> as well. ex: I checked 3.1.2 and 2.10 src packages.
> I will raise a Jira and fix this for both hadoop and thirdparty.
>
> 4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
>> Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
>> the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
>>
>> Again, NOTICE.txt was copied from Hadoop and kept as is. I will create a
> jira to decide about NOTICE and LICENSEs
>
> 5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
>> unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
>>
>> We can decide in the Jira whether NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary to be
> used or not.
>
> 6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
>> artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
>> from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
>>
>
> I observed that there is one more file "META-INF/DEPENDENCIES" generated
> by shade plugin, which have reference to shaded artifacts and poniting to
> link of the original artifact LICENSE. I think this should be sufficient
> about protobuf's original license.
> IMO, "META-INF/LICENSE.txt" should point to current project's LICENSE,
> which in-turn can have contents/pointers of dependents' licenses. Siimilar
> approach followed in hadoop-shaded-client jars.
>
> hadoop's artifacts also will be uploaded to maven repo during release,
> which doesnot carry all LICENSE files in artifacts. It just says "See
> licenses/ for text of these licenses" which doesnot exist in artifact. May
> be we need to fix this too.
>
> 7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
>> files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would help
>> to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
>>
>>
> Again, this is from create-release script. will update the script.
>
> Thanks again to work on this,
>> Marton
>>
>> ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
>> these are blocking and I might be wrong.
>>
>>
> IMO, none of these should be blocking and can be handled before next
> release. Still if someone feels this should be fixed and RC should be cut
> again, I am open to it.
>
> Thanks.
>
>>
>>
>> On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
>> > Hi folks,
>> >
>> > Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
>> >
>> > I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty
>> 1.0.0.
>> >
>> > RC Release artifacts are available at :
>> >
>> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
>> >
>> > Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
>> >
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>> >
>> > The RC tag in git is here:
>> > https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
>> >
>> > And my public key is at:
>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
>> >
>> > *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm
>> IST.*
>> >
>> > For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
>> > "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
>> >
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>> > -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
>> >
>> > My +1 to start.
>> >
>> > -Vinay
>> >
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16895 jira created for
handling LICENCE and NOTICEs
PR also has been raised for a proposal. Please validate
https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/6
-Vinay
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:48 PM Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Thanks Elek for detailed verification.
>
> Please find inline replies.
>
> -Vinay
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
>> hard work...
>>
>>
>> 1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
>>
>> 2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are
>> fine
>>
>> 3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
>> it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
>> tar file.
>>
>> Since dev-support/create-release script and assembly file is copied from
> hadoop-repo, I can find this issue exits in hadoop source release packages
> as well. ex: I checked 3.1.2 and 2.10 src packages.
> I will raise a Jira and fix this for both hadoop and thirdparty.
>
> 4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
>> Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
>> the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
>>
>> Again, NOTICE.txt was copied from Hadoop and kept as is. I will create a
> jira to decide about NOTICE and LICENSEs
>
> 5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
>> unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
>>
>> We can decide in the Jira whether NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary to be
> used or not.
>
> 6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
>> artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
>> from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
>>
>
> I observed that there is one more file "META-INF/DEPENDENCIES" generated
> by shade plugin, which have reference to shaded artifacts and poniting to
> link of the original artifact LICENSE. I think this should be sufficient
> about protobuf's original license.
> IMO, "META-INF/LICENSE.txt" should point to current project's LICENSE,
> which in-turn can have contents/pointers of dependents' licenses. Siimilar
> approach followed in hadoop-shaded-client jars.
>
> hadoop's artifacts also will be uploaded to maven repo during release,
> which doesnot carry all LICENSE files in artifacts. It just says "See
> licenses/ for text of these licenses" which doesnot exist in artifact. May
> be we need to fix this too.
>
> 7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
>> files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would help
>> to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
>>
>>
> Again, this is from create-release script. will update the script.
>
> Thanks again to work on this,
>> Marton
>>
>> ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
>> these are blocking and I might be wrong.
>>
>>
> IMO, none of these should be blocking and can be handled before next
> release. Still if someone feels this should be fixed and RC should be cut
> again, I am open to it.
>
> Thanks.
>
>>
>>
>> On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
>> > Hi folks,
>> >
>> > Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
>> >
>> > I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty
>> 1.0.0.
>> >
>> > RC Release artifacts are available at :
>> >
>> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
>> >
>> > Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
>> >
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>> >
>> > The RC tag in git is here:
>> > https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
>> >
>> > And my public key is at:
>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
>> >
>> > *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm
>> IST.*
>> >
>> > For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
>> > "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
>> >
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>> > -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
>> >
>> > My +1 to start.
>> >
>> > -Vinay
>> >
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>.
Thanks Elek for detailed verification.
Please find inline replies.
-Vinay
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
> hard work...
>
>
> 1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
>
> 2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are
> fine
>
> 3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
> it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
> tar file.
>
> Since dev-support/create-release script and assembly file is copied from
hadoop-repo, I can find this issue exits in hadoop source release packages
as well. ex: I checked 3.1.2 and 2.10 src packages.
I will raise a Jira and fix this for both hadoop and thirdparty.
4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
> Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
> the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
>
> Again, NOTICE.txt was copied from Hadoop and kept as is. I will create a
jira to decide about NOTICE and LICENSEs
5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
> unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
>
> We can decide in the Jira whether NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary to be
used or not.
6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
> artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
> from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
>
I observed that there is one more file "META-INF/DEPENDENCIES" generated by
shade plugin, which have reference to shaded artifacts and poniting to link
of the original artifact LICENSE. I think this should be sufficient about
protobuf's original license.
IMO, "META-INF/LICENSE.txt" should point to current project's LICENSE,
which in-turn can have contents/pointers of dependents' licenses. Siimilar
approach followed in hadoop-shaded-client jars.
hadoop's artifacts also will be uploaded to maven repo during release,
which doesnot carry all LICENSE files in artifacts. It just says "See
licenses/ for text of these licenses" which doesnot exist in artifact. May
be we need to fix this too.
7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
> files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would help
> to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
>
>
Again, this is from create-release script. will update the script.
Thanks again to work on this,
> Marton
>
> ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
> these are blocking and I might be wrong.
>
>
IMO, none of these should be blocking and can be handled before next
release. Still if someone feels this should be fixed and RC should be cut
again, I am open to it.
Thanks.
>
>
> On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
> >
> > I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty
> 1.0.0.
> >
> > RC Release artifacts are available at :
> >
> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
> >
> > Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> >
> > The RC tag in git is here:
> > https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
> >
> > And my public key is at:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
> >
> > *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm
> IST.*
> >
> > For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
> > "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> > -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
> >
> > My +1 to start.
> >
> > -Vinay
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>.
Thanks Elek for detailed verification.
Please find inline replies.
-Vinay
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
> hard work...
>
>
> 1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
>
> 2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are
> fine
>
> 3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
> it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
> tar file.
>
> Since dev-support/create-release script and assembly file is copied from
hadoop-repo, I can find this issue exits in hadoop source release packages
as well. ex: I checked 3.1.2 and 2.10 src packages.
I will raise a Jira and fix this for both hadoop and thirdparty.
4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
> Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
> the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
>
> Again, NOTICE.txt was copied from Hadoop and kept as is. I will create a
jira to decide about NOTICE and LICENSEs
5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
> unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
>
> We can decide in the Jira whether NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary to be
used or not.
6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
> artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
> from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
>
I observed that there is one more file "META-INF/DEPENDENCIES" generated by
shade plugin, which have reference to shaded artifacts and poniting to link
of the original artifact LICENSE. I think this should be sufficient about
protobuf's original license.
IMO, "META-INF/LICENSE.txt" should point to current project's LICENSE,
which in-turn can have contents/pointers of dependents' licenses. Siimilar
approach followed in hadoop-shaded-client jars.
hadoop's artifacts also will be uploaded to maven repo during release,
which doesnot carry all LICENSE files in artifacts. It just says "See
licenses/ for text of these licenses" which doesnot exist in artifact. May
be we need to fix this too.
7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
> files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would help
> to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
>
>
Again, this is from create-release script. will update the script.
Thanks again to work on this,
> Marton
>
> ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
> these are blocking and I might be wrong.
>
>
IMO, none of these should be blocking and can be handled before next
release. Still if someone feels this should be fixed and RC should be cut
again, I am open to it.
Thanks.
>
>
> On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
> >
> > I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty
> 1.0.0.
> >
> > RC Release artifacts are available at :
> >
> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
> >
> > Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> >
> > The RC tag in git is here:
> > https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
> >
> > And my public key is at:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
> >
> > *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm
> IST.*
> >
> > For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
> > "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> > -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
> >
> > My +1 to start.
> >
> > -Vinay
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>.
Thanks Elek for detailed verification.
Please find inline replies.
-Vinay
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
> hard work...
>
>
> 1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
>
> 2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are
> fine
>
> 3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
> it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
> tar file.
>
> Since dev-support/create-release script and assembly file is copied from
hadoop-repo, I can find this issue exits in hadoop source release packages
as well. ex: I checked 3.1.2 and 2.10 src packages.
I will raise a Jira and fix this for both hadoop and thirdparty.
4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
> Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
> the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
>
> Again, NOTICE.txt was copied from Hadoop and kept as is. I will create a
jira to decide about NOTICE and LICENSEs
5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
> unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
>
> We can decide in the Jira whether NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary to be
used or not.
6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
> artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
> from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
>
I observed that there is one more file "META-INF/DEPENDENCIES" generated by
shade plugin, which have reference to shaded artifacts and poniting to link
of the original artifact LICENSE. I think this should be sufficient about
protobuf's original license.
IMO, "META-INF/LICENSE.txt" should point to current project's LICENSE,
which in-turn can have contents/pointers of dependents' licenses. Siimilar
approach followed in hadoop-shaded-client jars.
hadoop's artifacts also will be uploaded to maven repo during release,
which doesnot carry all LICENSE files in artifacts. It just says "See
licenses/ for text of these licenses" which doesnot exist in artifact. May
be we need to fix this too.
7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
> files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would help
> to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
>
>
Again, this is from create-release script. will update the script.
Thanks again to work on this,
> Marton
>
> ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
> these are blocking and I might be wrong.
>
>
IMO, none of these should be blocking and can be handled before next
release. Still if someone feels this should be fixed and RC should be cut
again, I am open to it.
Thanks.
>
>
> On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
> >
> > I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty
> 1.0.0.
> >
> > RC Release artifacts are available at :
> >
> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
> >
> > Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> >
> > The RC tag in git is here:
> > https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
> >
> > And my public key is at:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
> >
> > *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm
> IST.*
> >
> > For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
> > "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> > -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
> >
> > My +1 to start.
> >
> > -Vinay
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>.
Thanks Elek for detailed verification.
Please find inline replies.
-Vinay
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
> hard work...
>
>
> 1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
>
> 2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are
> fine
>
> 3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
> it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
> tar file.
>
> Since dev-support/create-release script and assembly file is copied from
hadoop-repo, I can find this issue exits in hadoop source release packages
as well. ex: I checked 3.1.2 and 2.10 src packages.
I will raise a Jira and fix this for both hadoop and thirdparty.
4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
> Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
> the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
>
> Again, NOTICE.txt was copied from Hadoop and kept as is. I will create a
jira to decide about NOTICE and LICENSEs
5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
> unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
>
> We can decide in the Jira whether NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary to be
used or not.
6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
> artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
> from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
>
I observed that there is one more file "META-INF/DEPENDENCIES" generated by
shade plugin, which have reference to shaded artifacts and poniting to link
of the original artifact LICENSE. I think this should be sufficient about
protobuf's original license.
IMO, "META-INF/LICENSE.txt" should point to current project's LICENSE,
which in-turn can have contents/pointers of dependents' licenses. Siimilar
approach followed in hadoop-shaded-client jars.
hadoop's artifacts also will be uploaded to maven repo during release,
which doesnot carry all LICENSE files in artifacts. It just says "See
licenses/ for text of these licenses" which doesnot exist in artifact. May
be we need to fix this too.
7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
> files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would help
> to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
>
>
Again, this is from create-release script. will update the script.
Thanks again to work on this,
> Marton
>
> ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
> these are blocking and I might be wrong.
>
>
IMO, none of these should be blocking and can be handled before next
release. Still if someone feels this should be fixed and RC should be cut
again, I am open to it.
Thanks.
>
>
> On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
> >
> > I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty
> 1.0.0.
> >
> > RC Release artifacts are available at :
> >
> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
> >
> > Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> >
> > The RC tag in git is here:
> > https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
> >
> > And my public key is at:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
> >
> > *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm
> IST.*
> >
> > For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
> > "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> > -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
> >
> > My +1 to start.
> >
> > -Vinay
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by "Elek, Marton" <el...@apache.org>.
Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
hard work...
1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are fine
3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
tar file.
4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would help
to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
Thanks again to work on this,
Marton
ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
these are blocking and I might be wrong.
On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
>
> I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0.
>
> RC Release artifacts are available at :
> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
>
> Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>
> The RC tag in git is here:
> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
>
> And my public key is at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
>
> *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm IST.*
>
> For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
> "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
>
> My +1 to start.
>
> -Vinay
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Masatake Iwasaki <iw...@oss.nttdata.co.jp>.
Thanks for putting up this, Vinayakumar B.
+1(non-binding).
* verified the signature and checksum of the source tarball.
* installed the RC0 to my local repository by `mvn install`.
* Built Hadoop trunk by `mvn clean install -DskipTests
-Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0`.
Masatake Iwasaki
Masatake IwasakiOn 2020/02/26 4:17, Vinayakumar B wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
>
> I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0.
>
> RC Release artifacts are available at :
> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
>
> Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>
> The RC tag in git is here:
> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
>
> And my public key is at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
>
> *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm IST.*
>
> For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
> "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
>
> My +1 to start.
>
> -Vinay
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mapreduce-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: mapreduce-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Masatake Iwasaki <iw...@oss.nttdata.co.jp>.
Thanks for putting up this, Vinayakumar B.
+1(non-binding).
* verified the signature and checksum of the source tarball.
* installed the RC0 to my local repository by `mvn install`.
* Built Hadoop trunk by `mvn clean install -DskipTests
-Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0`.
Masatake Iwasaki
Masatake IwasakiOn 2020/02/26 4:17, Vinayakumar B wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
>
> I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0.
>
> RC Release artifacts are available at :
> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
>
> Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>
> The RC tag in git is here:
> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
>
> And my public key is at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
>
> *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm IST.*
>
> For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
> "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
>
> My +1 to start.
>
> -Vinay
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Masatake Iwasaki <iw...@oss.nttdata.co.jp>.
Thanks for putting up this, Vinayakumar B.
+1(non-binding).
* verified the signature and checksum of the source tarball.
* installed the RC0 to my local repository by `mvn install`.
* Built Hadoop trunk by `mvn clean install -DskipTests
-Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0`.
Masatake Iwasaki
Masatake IwasakiOn 2020/02/26 4:17, Vinayakumar B wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
>
> I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0.
>
> RC Release artifacts are available at :
> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
>
> Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>
> The RC tag in git is here:
> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
>
> And my public key is at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
>
> *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm IST.*
>
> For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
> "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
>
> My +1 to start.
>
> -Vinay
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by "Elek, Marton" <el...@apache.org>.
Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
hard work...
1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are fine
3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
tar file.
4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would help
to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
Thanks again to work on this,
Marton
ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
these are blocking and I might be wrong.
On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
>
> I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0.
>
> RC Release artifacts are available at :
> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
>
> Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>
> The RC tag in git is here:
> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
>
> And my public key is at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
>
> *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm IST.*
>
> For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
> "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
>
> My +1 to start.
>
> -Vinay
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mapreduce-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: mapreduce-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by "Elek, Marton" <el...@apache.org>.
Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
hard work...
1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are fine
3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
tar file.
4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would help
to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
Thanks again to work on this,
Marton
ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
these are blocking and I might be wrong.
On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
>
> I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0.
>
> RC Release artifacts are available at :
> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
>
> Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>
> The RC tag in git is here:
> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
>
> And my public key is at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
>
> *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm IST.*
>
> For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
> "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
>
> My +1 to start.
>
> -Vinay
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Masatake Iwasaki <iw...@oss.nttdata.co.jp>.
Thanks for putting up this, Vinayakumar B.
+1(non-binding).
* verified the signature and checksum of the source tarball.
* installed the RC0 to my local repository by `mvn install`.
* Built Hadoop trunk by `mvn clean install -DskipTests
-Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0`.
Masatake Iwasaki
Masatake IwasakiOn 2020/02/26 4:17, Vinayakumar B wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
>
> I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0.
>
> RC Release artifacts are available at :
> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
>
> Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>
> The RC tag in git is here:
> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
>
> And my public key is at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
>
> *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm IST.*
>
> For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
> "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
>
> My +1 to start.
>
> -Vinay
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by "Elek, Marton" <el...@apache.org>.
Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
hard work...
1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are fine
3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
tar file.
4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would help
to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
Thanks again to work on this,
Marton
ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
these are blocking and I might be wrong.
On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
>
> I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0.
>
> RC Release artifacts are available at :
> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
>
> Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>
> The RC tag in git is here:
> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
>
> And my public key is at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
>
> *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm IST.*
>
> For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
> "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
>
> My +1 to start.
>
> -Vinay
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org