Here is my +1 for the RC. Checked sigs, crcs, Checked layout, jars Checked the book Run local mode Run on a 5 node cluster Run smoke test, simple shell commands Run LTT with 1M and different encodings / compression Run ITBLL, wrote 100M nodes Test with 1.0.0 and 0.98.12 clients
Thanks Ted and Josh for testing the RC. We need one more +1. Anybody else wants to test? I'll extend the vote until tomorrow midnight PDT. Enis On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 for resuming the vote. > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Enis Söztutar <e...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Yes, consider voting resumed. > > Andrew, is +1 for the RC or for resuming voting? > > > > Let me extend the VOTE until Sunday 11:59PM PDT for lost time. > > > > Enis > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Can this VOTE thread come back to life now? > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Andrew Purtell < > > apurt...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Let's postpone this vote. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See the threads on dev@ titled "Clarifying interface evolution > > > > freedom > > > > > in > > > > > > patch releases" and "The Renumbering (proposed)". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Sean Busbey < > bus...@cloudera.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2015 4:40 PM, "Enis Söztutar" <enis....@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the agreement is to continue with the RC. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One note... in the japi report, I was a little surprised > > when I > > > > > > noticed > > > > > > > > method additions to InterfaceAudience.Public annotated > classes. > > > > This > > > > > > > means > > > > > > > > that a user could write code against 1.0.1 that would not > work > > > > > against > > > > > > > > 1.0.0 which seems undesirable for a bugfix release. I read > over > > > the > > > > > > book > > > > > > > > section on compatibility and didn't see this addressed, so I > > > > thought > > > > > > I'd > > > > > > > > ask. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this is allowed. Did not check it though. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not allowed normally under semver. There's already another > > > > thread > > > > > > > going on this though. > > > > > > > > > >
