+1,

I checked
- git commit hash is correct
- Checksums and signatures are valid.
- Successfully built the binary from the source with:
./build/make-distribution.sh -Pspark-3.5

Regards,
Kerwin Zhang

Fei Wang <[email protected]> 于2025年12月1日周一 12:10写道:
>
> +1,
>
> I have checked:
> - Download links are valid.
> - git commit hash is correct
> - Checksums and signatures are valid.
> - Successfully built binary from source via ./build/make-distribution.sh 
> -Pspark-4.0
>
> Best Regards,
> Fei Wang
>
> On 2025/11/25 04:44:15 Nicholas wrote:
> > Hi Celeborn community,
> >
> >
> > This is a call for a vote to release Apache Celeborn
> > 0.6.2-rc0
> >
> >
> > The git tag to be voted upon:
> > https://github.com/apache/celeborn/releases/tag/v0.6.2-rc0
> >
> >
> > The git commit hash:
> > 1af2849e301512117925eb3b0213995475b4269f source and binary artifacts can be 
> > found at:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/celeborn/v0.6.2-rc0
> >
> >
> > The staging repo:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheceleborn-1132
> >
> >
> > Fingerprint of the PGP key release artifacts are signed with: 
> > 92B13217E2AD1470D58882EF7B41580856A83A36
> >
> >
> > My public key to verify signatures can be found in:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/celeborn/KEYS
> >
> >
> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours or until the necessary number 
> > of votes are reached.
> >
> >
> > Please vote accordingly:
> >
> >
> > [ ] +1 approve
> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > [ ] -1 disapprove (and the reason)
> >
> >
> > Steps to validate the release:
> > https://www.apache.org/info/verification.html
> >
> >
> > * Download links, checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
> > * Source code distributions have correct names matching the current release.
> > * LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct.
> > * All files have license headers if necessary.
> > * No unlicensed compiled archives bundled in source archive.
> > * The source tarball matches the git tag.
> > * Build from source is successful.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Nicholas Jiang

Reply via email to