Re: release activties

2017-05-07 Thread Tushar Gosavi
I have updated https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/infrastructure/buildbot/aegis/buildmaster/master1/projects/apex.conf file by adding release-3.6 branch for Apex Core. For some reason builder is not registered for release-3.6 and force build through IRC is also not working as builder is not registe

[jira] [Commented] (APEXMALHAR-2484) BlockWriter for writing the part files into the specified directory

2017-05-07 Thread ASF GitHub Bot (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXMALHAR-2484?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16000267#comment-16000267 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on APEXMALHAR-2484: Github user chaithu14 closed

[GitHub] apex-malhar pull request #614: APEXMALHAR-2484 Support of PartFileWriter for...

2017-05-07 Thread chaithu14
Github user chaithu14 closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/apex-malhar/pull/614 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature

Re: old versions in https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/apex/

2017-05-07 Thread Vlad Rozov
I would consider Hadoop to be in violation of [2 ]. IMO, we don't need to violate it and should have links to the latest core and malhar only. Thank you, Vlad On 5/7/17 08:59, Pramod Immaneni wrote: The policy reads we should

[jira] [Commented] (APEXCORE-711) Support custom SSL keystore for the Stram REST API web service

2017-05-07 Thread Vlad Rozov (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-711?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16000121#comment-16000121 ] Vlad Rozov commented on APEXCORE-711: - I'd prefer not to rely on YARN-6457 and YARN-

[GitHub] apex-core pull request #524: APEXCORE-717 Remove unnecessary archetypeVersio...

2017-05-07 Thread vrozov
GitHub user vrozov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/apex-core/pull/524 APEXCORE-717 Remove unnecessary archetypeVersion property @tweise Please see. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/vrozov/apex-core

[jira] [Commented] (APEXCORE-717) Remove unnecessary archetypeVersion property

2017-05-07 Thread ASF GitHub Bot (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-717?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=1676#comment-1676 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on APEXCORE-717: - GitHub user vrozov opened a pull requ

[GitHub] apex-site pull request #74: fixes to release instructions

2017-05-07 Thread asfgit
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/apex-site/pull/74 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is en

[jira] [Commented] (APEXCORE-716) Add a package level javadoc for engine api about it's intended use

2017-05-07 Thread ASF GitHub Bot (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-716?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=1515#comment-1515 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on APEXCORE-716: - GitHub user PramodSSImmaneni opened a

[GitHub] apex-core pull request #523: APEXCORE-716 Javadoc for engine api packages wa...

2017-05-07 Thread PramodSSImmaneni
GitHub user PramodSSImmaneni opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/apex-core/pull/523 APEXCORE-716 Javadoc for engine api packages warning of no backwards compatibility guarantees @vrozov @tweise please see You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running

Re: old versions in https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/apex/

2017-05-07 Thread Pramod Immaneni
The policy reads we should only have "*the latest release in each branch that is currently under development". *That most probably means only the latest version for core and malhar as we are not doing active development on multiple branches. However, could it be loosely interpreted to include older