+1 (binding)

- checked release notes ✅
- verified sums and hashes ✅
- verified no binary artifacts in source release ✅
- reviewed website PR ✅
- built from source ✅
- built an internal Flink distribution based on the 1.9.3-rc1 commit ✅
- built internal jobs against the staging repo ✅
- deployed those jobs to a 1.9.3 job cluster on Kubernetes and tested
checkpointing, SSL ✅


On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:58 AM Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> wrote:

> +1 (binding)
>
> - for license documentation, I checked the diff between 1.9.2 and 1.9.3:
> https://github.com/apache/flink/compare/release-1.9.2...release-1.9.3-rc1
>   - Kafka dependency changed from 0.10.2.1 to 0.10.2.2 --> License doc was
> updated in PR https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/11617/files
>   - one test dependency change that is not relevant
> - checked the maven staging repo files
>   - 1.9.3 set correctly, java quickstart looks fine
>   - checked license files of some shaded jars
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 3:22 PM Leonard Xu <xbjt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > - checked/verified signatures and hashes
> > - checked the release note
> > - checked that there are no missing artifacts in staging area
> > - built from source sing scala 2.11 and using Scala 2.12 succeeded
> > - ran a couple of end-to-end tests locally and succeeded
> > - went through all commits checked in between 1.9.3 and 1.9.2, make sure
> > all issues set the "fixVersion" property
> > - started a cluster, WebUI was accessible, submitted a wordcount job and
> > ran succeeded, no suspicious log output
> > - the web PR looks good
> >
> > Best,
> > Leonard Xu
> >
> > > 在 2020年4月22日,17:58,Dian Fu <dian0511...@gmail.com> 写道:
> > >
> > > +1 (non-binding)
> > >
> > > - verified the checksum and signature
> > > - checked the release note
> > > - checked that there are no new dependencies introduced since 1.9.2
> which
> > > may affect the license (only bump kafka from 0.10.2.1 to 0.10.2.2 which
> > > doesn't affect the license)
> > > - checked that there are no missing artifacts in staging area
> > > - checked that the pyflink package could be pip installed
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Dian
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 3:35 PM Fabian Paul <
> > fabianp...@data-artisans.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1 (non-binding)
> > >>
> > >> - Verified signature
> > >> - Built from source (Java8)
> > >> - Run custom jobs on Kubernetes
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Fabian
> > >>
> > >>> On 18. Apr 2020, at 04:37, Dian Fu <dian0511...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi everyone,
> > >>>
> > >>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
> > 1.9.3,
> > >>> as follows:
> > >>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> > >>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which
> includes:
> > >>> * JIRA release notes [1],
> > >>> * the official Apache source release and binary convenience releases
> to
> > >> be
> > >>> deployed to dist.apache.org [2], which are signed with the key with
> > >>> fingerprint 6B6291A8502BA8F0913AE04DDEB95B05BF075300 [3],
> > >>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> > >>> * source code tag "release-1.9.3-rc1" [5],
> > >>> * website pull request listing the new release and adding
> announcement
> > >> blog
> > >>> post [6].
> > >>>
> > >>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
> majority
> > >> approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Dian
> > >>>
> > >>> [1]
> > >>
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315522&version=12346867
> > >>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flink/flink-1.9.3-rc1/
> > >>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/flink/KEYS
> > >>> [4]
> > >>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1353/
> > >>> [5]
> > >>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/commit/6d23b2c38c7a8fd8855063238c744923e1985a63
> > >>> [6] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pull/329
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to