Re: [VOTE] Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
It¹s looks like the release notes (<https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310843 &version=12334255>) only have information about times that were fixed. Is there a mechanism in rel notes to note important things that didn¹t make it? For example, HIVE-13974? Eugene On 6/21/16, 10:40 AM, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez" wrote: >Yes Thejas, I think it makes sense. It would be good to know if want to >remove >the RC tags to update it all together. > >Further, I wonder if we should move all the tag releases to rel/*. I can >do >that too. > >-- > >Jesús > > > >On 6/21/16, 10:35 AM, "Thejas Nair" wrote: > >>Jesus, >>Should we update the how-to-release page with steps suggested by Owen ? >>Thanks, >>Thejas >> >> >>On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez >> wrote: >>> Thanks for pointing that out Owen, it is done now. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/21/16, 7:08 AM, "Owen O'Malley" wrote: >>> >>>>According to Apache Infra, we should be creating our release tags in >>>>the >>>>rel/* space. Tags with names that start with "rel/" can never be >>>>changed >>>>once they are pushed to Apache, so be careful. *smile* But having a >>>>unmodifiable tag is good to make sure that no one is tempted to "fix" a >>>>release. >>>> >>>>Can you please recreate the tag with the name "rel/release-2.1.0". I'd >>>>also >>>>suggest that you sign the tag with your GPG key with "git tag -s >>>>rel/release-2.1.0 " >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>> Owen >>>> >>>>On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez < >>>>jcamachorodrig...@hortonworks.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks to everyone who has tested the release candidate and given >>>>> their comments and votes. >>>>> >>>>> The tally is as follows. >>>>> >>>>> 4 +1s: >>>>> Prasanth Jayachandran >>>>> Gunther Hagleitner >>>>> Sushanth Sowmyan >>>>> Jason Dere >>>>> >>>>> No 0s or -1s. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore I am delighted to announce that the proposal to release >>>>> Apache Hive 2.1.0 has passed! We'll now roll the release out to the >>>>> mirrors. >>>>> >>>>> In addition, I have created HIVE-14059 to fix the issue with the >>>>> missing headers for the 2 files (thanks for catching that one >>>>> Sushanth). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 6/17/16, 3:54 PM, "Jason Dere" wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >Checked signatures, ran build and a few tests. >>>>> >+1 >>>>> > >>>>> >From: Sushanth Sowmyan >>>>> >Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 3:30 PM >>>>> >To: dev@hive.apache.org >>>>> >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3 >>>>> > >>>>> >Actually, to be more explicit, per Thejas' case of the top level >>>>> >license taking precedence, this RC has my +1. >>>>> > >>>>> >On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Sushanth Sowmyan >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >> I will happily rescind my -1 and even convert it to a +1 if the >>>>>top >>>>> >> level license does hold. I thought that the RAT check was a >>>>>necessary >>>>> >> blocker. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> (Although, if the top level license does cover across the board, >>>>>we >>>>> >> may want to open a new discussion on whether having a license >>>>> >> requirement for every source file is necessary in the first >>>>>place, and >>>>> >> tweak the definition of the rat check so it does not fail it in >>>>>this >>>>> >> case.) >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Thejas Nair >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>> I don't think the missing headers for 2 files mandate
Re: [VOTE] Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Yes Thejas, I think it makes sense. It would be good to know if want to remove the RC tags to update it all together. Further, I wonder if we should move all the tag releases to rel/*. I can do that too. -- Jesús On 6/21/16, 10:35 AM, "Thejas Nair" wrote: >Jesus, >Should we update the how-to-release page with steps suggested by Owen ? >Thanks, >Thejas > > >On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez > wrote: >> Thanks for pointing that out Owen, it is done now. >> >> >> >> >> On 6/21/16, 7:08 AM, "Owen O'Malley" wrote: >> >>>According to Apache Infra, we should be creating our release tags in the >>>rel/* space. Tags with names that start with "rel/" can never be changed >>>once they are pushed to Apache, so be careful. *smile* But having a >>>unmodifiable tag is good to make sure that no one is tempted to "fix" a >>>release. >>> >>>Can you please recreate the tag with the name "rel/release-2.1.0". I'd also >>>suggest that you sign the tag with your GPG key with "git tag -s >>>rel/release-2.1.0 " >>> >>>Thanks, >>> Owen >>> >>>On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez < >>>jcamachorodrig...@hortonworks.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks to everyone who has tested the release candidate and given >>>> their comments and votes. >>>> >>>> The tally is as follows. >>>> >>>> 4 +1s: >>>> Prasanth Jayachandran >>>> Gunther Hagleitner >>>> Sushanth Sowmyan >>>> Jason Dere >>>> >>>> No 0s or -1s. >>>> >>>> Therefore I am delighted to announce that the proposal to release >>>> Apache Hive 2.1.0 has passed! We'll now roll the release out to the >>>> mirrors. >>>> >>>> In addition, I have created HIVE-14059 to fix the issue with the >>>> missing headers for the 2 files (thanks for catching that one >>>> Sushanth). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/17/16, 3:54 PM, "Jason Dere" wrote: >>>> >>>> >Checked signatures, ran build and a few tests. >>>> >+1 >>>> > >>>> >From: Sushanth Sowmyan >>>> >Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 3:30 PM >>>> >To: dev@hive.apache.org >>>> >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3 >>>> > >>>> >Actually, to be more explicit, per Thejas' case of the top level >>>> >license taking precedence, this RC has my +1. >>>> > >>>> >On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Sushanth Sowmyan >>>> wrote: >>>> >> I will happily rescind my -1 and even convert it to a +1 if the top >>>> >> level license does hold. I thought that the RAT check was a necessary >>>> >> blocker. >>>> >> >>>> >> (Although, if the top level license does cover across the board, we >>>> >> may want to open a new discussion on whether having a license >>>> >> requirement for every source file is necessary in the first place, and >>>> >> tweak the definition of the rat check so it does not fail it in this >>>> >> case.) >>>> >> >>>> >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Thejas Nair >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> I don't think the missing headers for 2 files mandates a respin of >>>> >>> this RC . It is not really a case of 'incompatible' license or code >>>> >>> that shouldn't be shipped. >>>> >>> We have a top level license file that covers the entire project, >>>> >>> including these files. >>>> >>> IMO, We should fix it if there is a new RC for some other reason. But >>>> >>> this alone doesn't seem to make new RC necessary. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Sushanth, Can you please reconsider your -1 ? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Sushanth Sowmyan >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> -1, terribly sorry I didn't check for this earlier, but the RAT check >>>> >>>> fails for this. >>>> &g
Re: [VOTE] Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Jesus, Should we update the how-to-release page with steps suggested by Owen ? Thanks, Thejas On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez wrote: > Thanks for pointing that out Owen, it is done now. > > > > > On 6/21/16, 7:08 AM, "Owen O'Malley" wrote: > >>According to Apache Infra, we should be creating our release tags in the >>rel/* space. Tags with names that start with "rel/" can never be changed >>once they are pushed to Apache, so be careful. *smile* But having a >>unmodifiable tag is good to make sure that no one is tempted to "fix" a >>release. >> >>Can you please recreate the tag with the name "rel/release-2.1.0". I'd also >>suggest that you sign the tag with your GPG key with "git tag -s >>rel/release-2.1.0 " >> >>Thanks, >> Owen >> >>On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez < >>jcamachorodrig...@hortonworks.com> wrote: >> >>> Thanks to everyone who has tested the release candidate and given >>> their comments and votes. >>> >>> The tally is as follows. >>> >>> 4 +1s: >>> Prasanth Jayachandran >>> Gunther Hagleitner >>> Sushanth Sowmyan >>> Jason Dere >>> >>> No 0s or -1s. >>> >>> Therefore I am delighted to announce that the proposal to release >>> Apache Hive 2.1.0 has passed! We'll now roll the release out to the >>> mirrors. >>> >>> In addition, I have created HIVE-14059 to fix the issue with the >>> missing headers for the 2 files (thanks for catching that one >>> Sushanth). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/17/16, 3:54 PM, "Jason Dere" wrote: >>> >>> >Checked signatures, ran build and a few tests. >>> >+1 >>> > >>> >From: Sushanth Sowmyan >>> >Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 3:30 PM >>> >To: dev@hive.apache.org >>> >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3 >>> > >>> >Actually, to be more explicit, per Thejas' case of the top level >>> >license taking precedence, this RC has my +1. >>> > >>> >On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Sushanth Sowmyan >>> wrote: >>> >> I will happily rescind my -1 and even convert it to a +1 if the top >>> >> level license does hold. I thought that the RAT check was a necessary >>> >> blocker. >>> >> >>> >> (Although, if the top level license does cover across the board, we >>> >> may want to open a new discussion on whether having a license >>> >> requirement for every source file is necessary in the first place, and >>> >> tweak the definition of the rat check so it does not fail it in this >>> >> case.) >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Thejas Nair >>> wrote: >>> >>> I don't think the missing headers for 2 files mandates a respin of >>> >>> this RC . It is not really a case of 'incompatible' license or code >>> >>> that shouldn't be shipped. >>> >>> We have a top level license file that covers the entire project, >>> >>> including these files. >>> >>> IMO, We should fix it if there is a new RC for some other reason. But >>> >>> this alone doesn't seem to make new RC necessary. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sushanth, Can you please reconsider your -1 ? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Sushanth Sowmyan >>> wrote: >>> >>>> -1, terribly sorry I didn't check for this earlier, but the RAT check >>> >>>> fails for this. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> If you run mvn apache-rat:check , then you see the following issue: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Unapproved licenses: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> /Users/sush/t/rel/apache-hive-2.1.0-src/common/src/java/org/apache/hive/common/util/DateParser.java >>> >>>> >>> >>> /Users/sush/t/rel/apache-hive-2.1.0-src/common/src/test/org/apache/hive/common/util/TestDateParser.java >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Basically, these two files are missing the apache license header. We >>> >>>> need to add them in. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> All other things are good, though. It has the oracle fix I asked for >>> >>>> in RC2, md5s and signatures check out, compilation works on source >>> >>>> package, and I'm able to run the hive binary from the binary package. >>> >>>> I also tried a number of tests, and I've run a rat test on the release >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez >>> >>>> wrote: >>> >>>>> Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3 is available here: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jcamacho/hive-2.1.0-rc3 >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Maven artifacts are available here: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehive-1057/ >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Source tag for RC3 is at: >>> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/hive/releases/tag/release-2.1.0-rc3 >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Voting will conclude in 72 hours. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Hive PMC Members: Please test and vote. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Thanks. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> > >>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Thanks for pointing that out Owen, it is done now. On 6/21/16, 7:08 AM, "Owen O'Malley" wrote: >According to Apache Infra, we should be creating our release tags in the >rel/* space. Tags with names that start with "rel/" can never be changed >once they are pushed to Apache, so be careful. *smile* But having a >unmodifiable tag is good to make sure that no one is tempted to "fix" a >release. > >Can you please recreate the tag with the name "rel/release-2.1.0". I'd also >suggest that you sign the tag with your GPG key with "git tag -s >rel/release-2.1.0 " > >Thanks, > Owen > >On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez < >jcamachorodrig...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > >> Thanks to everyone who has tested the release candidate and given >> their comments and votes. >> >> The tally is as follows. >> >> 4 +1s: >> Prasanth Jayachandran >> Gunther Hagleitner >> Sushanth Sowmyan >> Jason Dere >> >> No 0s or -1s. >> >> Therefore I am delighted to announce that the proposal to release >> Apache Hive 2.1.0 has passed! We'll now roll the release out to the >> mirrors. >> >> In addition, I have created HIVE-14059 to fix the issue with the >> missing headers for the 2 files (thanks for catching that one >> Sushanth). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 6/17/16, 3:54 PM, "Jason Dere" wrote: >> >> >Checked signatures, ran build and a few tests. >> >+1 >> > >> >From: Sushanth Sowmyan >> >Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 3:30 PM >> >To: dev@hive.apache.org >> >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3 >> > >> >Actually, to be more explicit, per Thejas' case of the top level >> >license taking precedence, this RC has my +1. >> > >> >On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Sushanth Sowmyan >> wrote: >> >> I will happily rescind my -1 and even convert it to a +1 if the top >> >> level license does hold. I thought that the RAT check was a necessary >> >> blocker. >> >> >> >> (Although, if the top level license does cover across the board, we >> >> may want to open a new discussion on whether having a license >> >> requirement for every source file is necessary in the first place, and >> >> tweak the definition of the rat check so it does not fail it in this >> >> case.) >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Thejas Nair >> wrote: >> >>> I don't think the missing headers for 2 files mandates a respin of >> >>> this RC . It is not really a case of 'incompatible' license or code >> >>> that shouldn't be shipped. >> >>> We have a top level license file that covers the entire project, >> >>> including these files. >> >>> IMO, We should fix it if there is a new RC for some other reason. But >> >>> this alone doesn't seem to make new RC necessary. >> >>> >> >>> Sushanth, Can you please reconsider your -1 ? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Sushanth Sowmyan >> wrote: >> >>>> -1, terribly sorry I didn't check for this earlier, but the RAT check >> >>>> fails for this. >> >>>> >> >>>> If you run mvn apache-rat:check , then you see the following issue: >> >>>> >> >>>> Unapproved licenses: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >> /Users/sush/t/rel/apache-hive-2.1.0-src/common/src/java/org/apache/hive/common/util/DateParser.java >> >>>> >> >> /Users/sush/t/rel/apache-hive-2.1.0-src/common/src/test/org/apache/hive/common/util/TestDateParser.java >> >>>> >> >>>> Basically, these two files are missing the apache license header. We >> >>>> need to add them in. >> >>>> >> >>>> All other things are good, though. It has the oracle fix I asked for >> >>>> in RC2, md5s and signatures check out, compilation works on source >> >>>> package, and I'm able to run the hive binary from the binary package. >> >>>> I also tried a number of tests, and I've run a rat test on the release >> >>>> >> >>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3 is available here: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jcamacho/hive-2.1.0-rc3 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Maven artifacts are available here: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehive-1057/ >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Source tag for RC3 is at: >> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/hive/releases/tag/release-2.1.0-rc3 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Voting will conclude in 72 hours. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hive PMC Members: Please test and vote. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Thanks. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> > >>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
According to Apache Infra, we should be creating our release tags in the rel/* space. Tags with names that start with "rel/" can never be changed once they are pushed to Apache, so be careful. *smile* But having a unmodifiable tag is good to make sure that no one is tempted to "fix" a release. Can you please recreate the tag with the name "rel/release-2.1.0". I'd also suggest that you sign the tag with your GPG key with "git tag -s rel/release-2.1.0 " Thanks, Owen On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez < jcamachorodrig...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > Thanks to everyone who has tested the release candidate and given > their comments and votes. > > The tally is as follows. > > 4 +1s: > Prasanth Jayachandran > Gunther Hagleitner > Sushanth Sowmyan > Jason Dere > > No 0s or -1s. > > Therefore I am delighted to announce that the proposal to release > Apache Hive 2.1.0 has passed! We'll now roll the release out to the > mirrors. > > In addition, I have created HIVE-14059 to fix the issue with the > missing headers for the 2 files (thanks for catching that one > Sushanth). > > > > > > > On 6/17/16, 3:54 PM, "Jason Dere" wrote: > > >Checked signatures, ran build and a few tests. > >+1 > >____________ > >From: Sushanth Sowmyan > >Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 3:30 PM > >To: dev@hive.apache.org > >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3 > > > >Actually, to be more explicit, per Thejas' case of the top level > >license taking precedence, this RC has my +1. > > > >On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Sushanth Sowmyan > wrote: > >> I will happily rescind my -1 and even convert it to a +1 if the top > >> level license does hold. I thought that the RAT check was a necessary > >> blocker. > >> > >> (Although, if the top level license does cover across the board, we > >> may want to open a new discussion on whether having a license > >> requirement for every source file is necessary in the first place, and > >> tweak the definition of the rat check so it does not fail it in this > >> case.) > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Thejas Nair > wrote: > >>> I don't think the missing headers for 2 files mandates a respin of > >>> this RC . It is not really a case of 'incompatible' license or code > >>> that shouldn't be shipped. > >>> We have a top level license file that covers the entire project, > >>> including these files. > >>> IMO, We should fix it if there is a new RC for some other reason. But > >>> this alone doesn't seem to make new RC necessary. > >>> > >>> Sushanth, Can you please reconsider your -1 ? > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Sushanth Sowmyan > wrote: > >>>> -1, terribly sorry I didn't check for this earlier, but the RAT check > >>>> fails for this. > >>>> > >>>> If you run mvn apache-rat:check , then you see the following issue: > >>>> > >>>> Unapproved licenses: > >>>> > >>>> > > /Users/sush/t/rel/apache-hive-2.1.0-src/common/src/java/org/apache/hive/common/util/DateParser.java > >>>> > > /Users/sush/t/rel/apache-hive-2.1.0-src/common/src/test/org/apache/hive/common/util/TestDateParser.java > >>>> > >>>> Basically, these two files are missing the apache license header. We > >>>> need to add them in. > >>>> > >>>> All other things are good, though. It has the oracle fix I asked for > >>>> in RC2, md5s and signatures check out, compilation works on source > >>>> package, and I'm able to run the hive binary from the binary package. > >>>> I also tried a number of tests, and I've run a rat test on the release > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3 is available here: > >>>>> > >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jcamacho/hive-2.1.0-rc3 > >>>>> > >>>>> Maven artifacts are available here: > >>>>> > >>>>> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehive-1057/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Source tag for RC3 is at: > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/hive/releases/tag/release-2.1.0-rc3 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Voting will conclude in 72 hours. > >>>>> > >>>>> Hive PMC Members: Please test and vote. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > > >
Re: [VOTE] Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Thanks to everyone who has tested the release candidate and given their comments and votes. The tally is as follows. 4 +1s: Prasanth Jayachandran Gunther Hagleitner Sushanth Sowmyan Jason Dere No 0s or -1s. Therefore I am delighted to announce that the proposal to release Apache Hive 2.1.0 has passed! We'll now roll the release out to the mirrors. In addition, I have created HIVE-14059 to fix the issue with the missing headers for the 2 files (thanks for catching that one Sushanth). On 6/17/16, 3:54 PM, "Jason Dere" wrote: >Checked signatures, ran build and a few tests. >+1 > >From: Sushanth Sowmyan >Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 3:30 PM >To: dev@hive.apache.org >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3 > >Actually, to be more explicit, per Thejas' case of the top level >license taking precedence, this RC has my +1. > >On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Sushanth Sowmyan wrote: >> I will happily rescind my -1 and even convert it to a +1 if the top >> level license does hold. I thought that the RAT check was a necessary >> blocker. >> >> (Although, if the top level license does cover across the board, we >> may want to open a new discussion on whether having a license >> requirement for every source file is necessary in the first place, and >> tweak the definition of the rat check so it does not fail it in this >> case.) >> >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Thejas Nair wrote: >>> I don't think the missing headers for 2 files mandates a respin of >>> this RC . It is not really a case of 'incompatible' license or code >>> that shouldn't be shipped. >>> We have a top level license file that covers the entire project, >>> including these files. >>> IMO, We should fix it if there is a new RC for some other reason. But >>> this alone doesn't seem to make new RC necessary. >>> >>> Sushanth, Can you please reconsider your -1 ? >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Sushanth Sowmyan >>> wrote: >>>> -1, terribly sorry I didn't check for this earlier, but the RAT check >>>> fails for this. >>>> >>>> If you run mvn apache-rat:check , then you see the following issue: >>>> >>>> Unapproved licenses: >>>> >>>> >>>> /Users/sush/t/rel/apache-hive-2.1.0-src/common/src/java/org/apache/hive/common/util/DateParser.java >>>> >>>> /Users/sush/t/rel/apache-hive-2.1.0-src/common/src/test/org/apache/hive/common/util/TestDateParser.java >>>> >>>> Basically, these two files are missing the apache license header. We >>>> need to add them in. >>>> >>>> All other things are good, though. It has the oracle fix I asked for >>>> in RC2, md5s and signatures check out, compilation works on source >>>> package, and I'm able to run the hive binary from the binary package. >>>> I also tried a number of tests, and I've run a rat test on the release >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez >>>> wrote: >>>>> Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3 is available here: >>>>> >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jcamacho/hive-2.1.0-rc3 >>>>> >>>>> Maven artifacts are available here: >>>>> >>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehive-1057/ >>>>> >>>>> Source tag for RC3 is at: >>>>> https://github.com/apache/hive/releases/tag/release-2.1.0-rc3 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Voting will conclude in 72 hours. >>>>> >>>>> Hive PMC Members: Please test and vote. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >
Re: [VOTE] Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Checked signatures, ran build and a few tests. +1 From: Sushanth Sowmyan Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 3:30 PM To: dev@hive.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3 Actually, to be more explicit, per Thejas' case of the top level license taking precedence, this RC has my +1. On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Sushanth Sowmyan wrote: > I will happily rescind my -1 and even convert it to a +1 if the top > level license does hold. I thought that the RAT check was a necessary > blocker. > > (Although, if the top level license does cover across the board, we > may want to open a new discussion on whether having a license > requirement for every source file is necessary in the first place, and > tweak the definition of the rat check so it does not fail it in this > case.) > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Thejas Nair wrote: >> I don't think the missing headers for 2 files mandates a respin of >> this RC . It is not really a case of 'incompatible' license or code >> that shouldn't be shipped. >> We have a top level license file that covers the entire project, >> including these files. >> IMO, We should fix it if there is a new RC for some other reason. But >> this alone doesn't seem to make new RC necessary. >> >> Sushanth, Can you please reconsider your -1 ? >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Sushanth Sowmyan wrote: >>> -1, terribly sorry I didn't check for this earlier, but the RAT check >>> fails for this. >>> >>> If you run mvn apache-rat:check , then you see the following issue: >>> >>> Unapproved licenses: >>> >>> >>> /Users/sush/t/rel/apache-hive-2.1.0-src/common/src/java/org/apache/hive/common/util/DateParser.java >>> >>> /Users/sush/t/rel/apache-hive-2.1.0-src/common/src/test/org/apache/hive/common/util/TestDateParser.java >>> >>> Basically, these two files are missing the apache license header. We >>> need to add them in. >>> >>> All other things are good, though. It has the oracle fix I asked for >>> in RC2, md5s and signatures check out, compilation works on source >>> package, and I'm able to run the hive binary from the binary package. >>> I also tried a number of tests, and I've run a rat test on the release >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez >>> wrote: >>>> Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3 is available here: >>>> >>>> http://people.apache.org/~jcamacho/hive-2.1.0-rc3 >>>> >>>> Maven artifacts are available here: >>>> >>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehive-1057/ >>>> >>>> Source tag for RC3 is at: >>>> https://github.com/apache/hive/releases/tag/release-2.1.0-rc3 >>>> >>>> >>>> Voting will conclude in 72 hours. >>>> >>>> Hive PMC Members: Please test and vote. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
Actually, to be more explicit, per Thejas' case of the top level license taking precedence, this RC has my +1. On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Sushanth Sowmyan wrote: > I will happily rescind my -1 and even convert it to a +1 if the top > level license does hold. I thought that the RAT check was a necessary > blocker. > > (Although, if the top level license does cover across the board, we > may want to open a new discussion on whether having a license > requirement for every source file is necessary in the first place, and > tweak the definition of the rat check so it does not fail it in this > case.) > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Thejas Nair wrote: >> I don't think the missing headers for 2 files mandates a respin of >> this RC . It is not really a case of 'incompatible' license or code >> that shouldn't be shipped. >> We have a top level license file that covers the entire project, >> including these files. >> IMO, We should fix it if there is a new RC for some other reason. But >> this alone doesn't seem to make new RC necessary. >> >> Sushanth, Can you please reconsider your -1 ? >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Sushanth Sowmyan wrote: >>> -1, terribly sorry I didn't check for this earlier, but the RAT check >>> fails for this. >>> >>> If you run mvn apache-rat:check , then you see the following issue: >>> >>> Unapproved licenses: >>> >>> >>> /Users/sush/t/rel/apache-hive-2.1.0-src/common/src/java/org/apache/hive/common/util/DateParser.java >>> >>> /Users/sush/t/rel/apache-hive-2.1.0-src/common/src/test/org/apache/hive/common/util/TestDateParser.java >>> >>> Basically, these two files are missing the apache license header. We >>> need to add them in. >>> >>> All other things are good, though. It has the oracle fix I asked for >>> in RC2, md5s and signatures check out, compilation works on source >>> package, and I'm able to run the hive binary from the binary package. >>> I also tried a number of tests, and I've run a rat test on the release >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez >>> wrote: Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3 is available here: http://people.apache.org/~jcamacho/hive-2.1.0-rc3 Maven artifacts are available here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehive-1057/ Source tag for RC3 is at: https://github.com/apache/hive/releases/tag/release-2.1.0-rc3 Voting will conclude in 72 hours. Hive PMC Members: Please test and vote. Thanks.
Re: [VOTE] Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
I will happily rescind my -1 and even convert it to a +1 if the top level license does hold. I thought that the RAT check was a necessary blocker. (Although, if the top level license does cover across the board, we may want to open a new discussion on whether having a license requirement for every source file is necessary in the first place, and tweak the definition of the rat check so it does not fail it in this case.) On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Thejas Nair wrote: > I don't think the missing headers for 2 files mandates a respin of > this RC . It is not really a case of 'incompatible' license or code > that shouldn't be shipped. > We have a top level license file that covers the entire project, > including these files. > IMO, We should fix it if there is a new RC for some other reason. But > this alone doesn't seem to make new RC necessary. > > Sushanth, Can you please reconsider your -1 ? > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Sushanth Sowmyan wrote: >> -1, terribly sorry I didn't check for this earlier, but the RAT check >> fails for this. >> >> If you run mvn apache-rat:check , then you see the following issue: >> >> Unapproved licenses: >> >> >> /Users/sush/t/rel/apache-hive-2.1.0-src/common/src/java/org/apache/hive/common/util/DateParser.java >> >> /Users/sush/t/rel/apache-hive-2.1.0-src/common/src/test/org/apache/hive/common/util/TestDateParser.java >> >> Basically, these two files are missing the apache license header. We >> need to add them in. >> >> All other things are good, though. It has the oracle fix I asked for >> in RC2, md5s and signatures check out, compilation works on source >> package, and I'm able to run the hive binary from the binary package. >> I also tried a number of tests, and I've run a rat test on the release >> >> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez >> wrote: >>> Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3 is available here: >>> >>> http://people.apache.org/~jcamacho/hive-2.1.0-rc3 >>> >>> Maven artifacts are available here: >>> >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehive-1057/ >>> >>> Source tag for RC3 is at: >>> https://github.com/apache/hive/releases/tag/release-2.1.0-rc3 >>> >>> >>> Voting will conclude in 72 hours. >>> >>> Hive PMC Members: Please test and vote. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
I don't think the missing headers for 2 files mandates a respin of this RC . It is not really a case of 'incompatible' license or code that shouldn't be shipped. We have a top level license file that covers the entire project, including these files. IMO, We should fix it if there is a new RC for some other reason. But this alone doesn't seem to make new RC necessary. Sushanth, Can you please reconsider your -1 ? On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Sushanth Sowmyan wrote: > -1, terribly sorry I didn't check for this earlier, but the RAT check > fails for this. > > If you run mvn apache-rat:check , then you see the following issue: > > Unapproved licenses: > > > /Users/sush/t/rel/apache-hive-2.1.0-src/common/src/java/org/apache/hive/common/util/DateParser.java > > /Users/sush/t/rel/apache-hive-2.1.0-src/common/src/test/org/apache/hive/common/util/TestDateParser.java > > Basically, these two files are missing the apache license header. We > need to add them in. > > All other things are good, though. It has the oracle fix I asked for > in RC2, md5s and signatures check out, compilation works on source > package, and I'm able to run the hive binary from the binary package. > I also tried a number of tests, and I've run a rat test on the release > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez > wrote: >> Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3 is available here: >> >> http://people.apache.org/~jcamacho/hive-2.1.0-rc3 >> >> Maven artifacts are available here: >> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehive-1057/ >> >> Source tag for RC3 is at: >> https://github.com/apache/hive/releases/tag/release-2.1.0-rc3 >> >> >> Voting will conclude in 72 hours. >> >> Hive PMC Members: Please test and vote. >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
-1, terribly sorry I didn't check for this earlier, but the RAT check fails for this. If you run mvn apache-rat:check , then you see the following issue: Unapproved licenses: /Users/sush/t/rel/apache-hive-2.1.0-src/common/src/java/org/apache/hive/common/util/DateParser.java /Users/sush/t/rel/apache-hive-2.1.0-src/common/src/test/org/apache/hive/common/util/TestDateParser.java Basically, these two files are missing the apache license header. We need to add them in. All other things are good, though. It has the oracle fix I asked for in RC2, md5s and signatures check out, compilation works on source package, and I'm able to run the hive binary from the binary package. I also tried a number of tests, and I've run a rat test on the release On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez wrote: > Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3 is available here: > > http://people.apache.org/~jcamacho/hive-2.1.0-rc3 > > Maven artifacts are available here: > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehive-1057/ > > Source tag for RC3 is at: > https://github.com/apache/hive/releases/tag/release-2.1.0-rc3 > > > Voting will conclude in 72 hours. > > Hive PMC Members: Please test and vote. > > Thanks. > > > >
Re: [VOTE] Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
+1 - verified signature and checksum for src and bin - compiled from source - ran a number of tests - verified structure/contents of the binary/src package Thanks, Gunther. From: Prasanth Jayachandran Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 2:40 PM To: dev@hive.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3 +1 - verified signature and checksum for binary and source - compiled source and ran some unit tests - ran hive cli from binary and ran some queries using tez Thanks Prasanth > On Jun 16, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez > wrote: > > Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3 is available here: > > http://people.apache.org/~jcamacho/hive-2.1.0-rc3 > > Maven artifacts are available here: > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehive-1057/ > > Source tag for RC3 is at: > https://github.com/apache/hive/releases/tag/release-2.1.0-rc3 > > > Voting will conclude in 72 hours. > > Hive PMC Members: Please test and vote. > > Thanks. > > > >
Re: [VOTE] Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3
+1 - verified signature and checksum for binary and source - compiled source and ran some unit tests - ran hive cli from binary and ran some queries using tez Thanks Prasanth > On Jun 16, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez > wrote: > > Apache Hive 2.1.0 Release Candidate 3 is available here: > > http://people.apache.org/~jcamacho/hive-2.1.0-rc3 > > Maven artifacts are available here: > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehive-1057/ > > Source tag for RC3 is at: > https://github.com/apache/hive/releases/tag/release-2.1.0-rc3 > > > Voting will conclude in 72 hours. > > Hive PMC Members: Please test and vote. > > Thanks. > > > >
