On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Phil Yang <ud1...@gmail.com> wrote: > In JIRA there are many resolved issues whose fix version is 2.0.0, they are > "released" when 2.0.0-alpha-1 released, do we need change them to > 2.0.0-alpha-1? 2.0.0 should be a formal version after alpha/beta? > > IMO fixes/features marked 2.0.0, while they appear in 2.0.0-alpha-1, they are not 'released' until we make a generally available hbase 2, i.e. hbase-2.0.0; a release for our general user base.
St.Ack > Thanks, > Phil > > > 2017-06-21 1:00 GMT+08:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>: > > > Thanks Josh. > > > > Sean noticed that I'd not actually pushed the alpha to our release dir. > > Just did that. > > > > St.Ack > > > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Done ;) > > > > > > There were two issues still tagged as alpha-1 (JIRA didn't want to show > > me > > > them before performing the action), but I bumped them to alpha-2. > > > > > > > > > On 6/20/17 12:19 PM, Mike Drob wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Stack, > > >> > > >> Can you mark jira version 2.0.0-alpha-1 as released? > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Mike > > >> > > >> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 10:55 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > >> > > >> With 4 binding votes and 1 non-binding, vote passes. Let me push out > the > > >>> alpha. > > >>> Thanks to all who voted. > > >>> St.Ack > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Great. Thanks Sean. In-line... > > >>>> > > >>>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> +1 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> details below, a few things to clean up for later alpha/betas. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> * checksums are all good > > >>>>> * signatures are made with two different keys. should clean up by > > next > > >>>>> alpha. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> src / bin artifacts are signed with 8ACC93D2, as you mentioned in > the > > >>>>> VOTE. However, this key is not in our project's KEYS file. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Yes. Will fix. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> maven staged repository are signed with 30CD0996, which is in our > KEYS > > >>>>> file so those check out fine. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> * the tag 2.0.0-alpha-1RC0 does point to > > >>>>> c830a0f47f58d4892dd3300032c8244d6278aecc, which matches the source > > >>>>> artifact after accounting HBASE-13088 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The tag isn't signed; would be good to make sure we do tag signing > in > > >>>>> betas so that it's ready to go come GA time. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Next time through, I'll update our 'How to RC' doc and will add > > above. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> (side note, it would be good to get a decision on HBASE-13088 for > the > > >>>>> beta releases. been over 2 years) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> * the source tarball creates a binary assembly that looks as close > to > > >>>>> the posted binary artifact as I've seen branch-1 do. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> idle interest, but our binary convenience artifact has jumped from > > >>>>> ~100MiB in branch-1 release to ~160MiB. If anyone has time to dig > in > > >>>>> on why, probably worth checking. (e.g. the docs directory is ~585 > MiB > > >>>>> when untared.) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Yes. Its obnoxious (HBASE-18208). > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> * shaded artifact binaries are a reasonable number of MiB in size > > >>>>> (incorrect build flags will result in ~empty jars) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> * LICENSE/NOTICE spot check looks okay. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> we have a ton of places where we have velocity variables instead of > > >>>>> copyright years, but IIRC that's a problem on branch-1 right now > too. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> * CHANGES file hasn't been updated correctly > > >>>>> > > >>>>> currently has details for 0.93. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Will fix next time through. > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks Sean, > > >>>> S > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Andrew Purtell < > apurt...@apache.org> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> +1 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The first release candidate for HBase 2.0.0-alpha-1 is up at: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/hbase/hbase-2.0.0- > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> alpha-1RC0/ > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>>>>> Maven artifacts are available from a staging directory here: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> hbase-1169 > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> All was signed w/ my key 8ACC93D2 > > >>>>>>> <http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9816C7FC8ACC93D2> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I tagged the RC as 2.0.0-alpha-1RC0 > > >>>>>>> (c830a0f47f58d4892dd3300032c8244d6278aecc). > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> hbase-2.0.0-alpha-1 will be our first 2.0.0 release. It is a > rough > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> cut > > >>> > > >>>> ('alpha') not-for-production preview of what hbase-2.0.0 will look > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> like. It > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> is what we used to call a 'Developer' release[1] meant mostly for > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> devs > > >>> > > >>>> and > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> downstreamers to test drive and flag us early if we there are > issues > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> we’ve > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> missed ahead of our rolling a production-worthy release. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> hbase-2.0.0 includes a fleet of new features that include a new > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> assignment > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> manager, means for keeping read and write path off-heap, in-memory > > >>>>>>> compactions, and more. I have been keeping a running doc on the > > state > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> of > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> 2.0.0 here [2]. There is much to do still (see aforementioned > doc). > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> The list of features addressed in 2.0.0 so far can be found here > > [4]. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> There > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> are about 2500. The list of ~500 fixes in 2.0.0 exclusively can be > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> found > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> here [3]. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Please take it for a spin and vote on whether it ok to put out as > > our > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> first > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> alpha (bar is low for an 'alpha'). Let the VOTE be open for 24 > > hours. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>> St.Ack > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> 1. http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.versioning.pre10 > > >>>>>>> 2. > > >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WCsVlnHjJeKUcl7wHwqb4z9iEu_ > > >>>>>>> ktczrlKHK8N4SZzs/edit#heading=h.v21r9nz8g01j > > >>>>>>> 3. > > >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17852?jql= > > >>>>>>> project%20%3D%20HBASE%20%20and%20fixVersion%20%3D%202. > > >>>>>>> 0.0%20and%20fixVersion%20not%20in%20(1.0.0%2C%201.0.1%2C% > > >>>>>>> 201.0.2%2C%201.0.3%2C%201.0.4%2C%201.0.5%2C%201.0.6%2C%201. > > >>>>>>> 1.0%2C%201.1.1%2C%201.1.2%2C%201.1.3%2C%201.1.4%2C%201.1.5% > > >>>>>>> 2C%201.1.6%2C%201.1.7%2C%201.1.8%2C%201.1.9%2C%201.1.10%2C% > > >>>>>>> 201.2.0%2C%201.2.1%2C%201.2.2%2C%201.2.3%2C%201.2.4%2C%201. > > >>>>>>> 2.5%2C%201.2.6%2C%201.3.0%2C%201.3.1%2C%201.4.0)%20and%20% > > >>>>>>> 20(status%20%3D%20Open%20or%20status%20%3D%20%22Patch% > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> 20Available%22) > > >>> > > >>>> 4. > > >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-18191?jql= > > >>>>>>> project%20%3D%20HBASE%20%20and%20(%20fixVersion%20%3D% > > >>>>>>> 202.0.0)%20and%20(status%20%3D%20Resolved) > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> -- > > >>>>>> Best regards, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> - Andy > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Raymond > > >>> > > >>>> Teller (via Peter Watts) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >
