Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-25 Thread Sijie Guo
Not yet. Unfortunately I think I need to run another vote in gene...@incubator.apache.org since we are still in incubation. I will start a vote thread in general@ today. - Sijie On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Asko Kauppi wrote: > Is there a URL / newsfeed that I could share about the releas

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-25 Thread Asko Kauppi
Is there a URL / newsfeed that I could share about the release with my organization? Asko Kauppi Zalando Tech Helsinki For Zalando internal messages, I prefer HipChat > On 25 Jan 2017, at 8.24, Sijie Guo wrote: > > I am happy to announce that we have unanimously approved this release. > > Th

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-24 Thread Sijie Guo
I am happy to announce that we have unanimously approved this release. There are 8 +1 votes and no disapproving votes. Thanks everyone! - Sijie On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version 0.4.0, > as f

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-24 Thread Sijie Guo
Ack, thank you folks! I am going to conclude the vote thread today. - Sijie On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 1:37 AM, liang xie wrote: > Oh, sorry for late reply due to holiday. > About LICENSE/NOTICE issue, i added it just following this change: > https://github.com/netty/netty/pull/4749/files. I just

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-24 Thread liang xie
Oh, sorry for late reply due to holiday. About LICENSE/NOTICE issue, i added it just following this change: https://github.com/netty/netty/pull/4749/files. I just created DL-189 to track it, thanks for kindly reminder. On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Flavio Junqueira wrote: > Given that there ha

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-24 Thread Flavio Junqueira
Given that there has been no further feedback on the LICENSE/NOTICE point below, perhaps we should create a couple of issues to track them so that we can revisit before graduation? They should not block this release, but we need to do some due diligence there. -Flavio > On 24 Jan 2017, at 02:5

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-23 Thread Sijie Guo
Ping? If there is no other strong objections here, I'd like to conclude the votes and proceed the remaining steps for the release. - Sijie On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Sijie Guo wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Flavio Junqueira wrote: > >> >> > On 19 Jan 2017, at 18:42, Siji

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-20 Thread Sijie Guo
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Flavio Junqueira wrote: > > > On 19 Jan 2017, at 18:42, Sijie Guo wrote: > > > > Flavio, > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Sijie Guo si...@apache.org>> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 18, 2017 10:37 AM, "Sijie Guo" si...@apache.org>> wrote: > > > > >

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-20 Thread Flavio Junqueira
> On 19 Jan 2017, at 18:42, Sijie Guo wrote: > > Flavio, > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Sijie Guo > wrote: > > > On Jan 18, 2017 10:37 AM, "Sijie Guo" > wrote: > > > On Jan 17, 2017 2:58 PM, "Flavio Junqueira"

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-19 Thread Sijie Guo
+ dev@ On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:18 PM, liang xie wrote: > Yes, that's the case i hit before. > > +1 for current RC. IMHO, this issue is not a blocker for 0.4 release. > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Sijie Guo wrote: > > I think what Liang points out is there is no slf4j binding in the >

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-19 Thread Sijie Guo
Flavio, On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Sijie Guo wrote: > > > On Jan 18, 2017 10:37 AM, "Sijie Guo" wrote: > > > > On Jan 17, 2017 2:58 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" wrote: > > +1, I have checked the following: > > - Built both 2.10 and 2.11 from source (skipped tests) > - Checksums and signatur

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-19 Thread Sijie Guo
I think what Liang points out is there is no slf4j binding in the distributedlog-benchmark packages. so when he ran dbench, there are warning messages that slf4j would use NOP logger binding. Liang, can you confirm if this is the case and also can you let me know your vote on this? I can cut a new

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-18 Thread Sijie Guo
On Jan 18, 2017 10:37 AM, "Sijie Guo" wrote: On Jan 17, 2017 2:58 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" wrote: +1, I have checked the following: - Built both 2.10 and 2.11 from source (skipped tests) - Checksums and signatures - NOTICE and LICENSE - Rat Questions: 1- I'm wondering if the text about Hadoop

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-18 Thread Sijie Guo
On Jan 17, 2017 2:58 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" wrote: +1, I have checked the following: - Built both 2.10 and 2.11 from source (skipped tests) - Checksums and signatures - NOTICE and LICENSE - Rat Questions: 1- I'm wondering if the text about Hadoop in NOTICE is necessary. How did you guys end up

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-18 Thread Henry Saputra
Where and when did you see this error message? - Henry On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:57 AM, liang xie wrote: > Verified source package with provided command and looks good to me. > > Seems missing slf4j-log4j12-1.6.4.jar in benchmark lib directory ? > since i saw this error if execute "dbench wri

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-17 Thread Khurrum Nasim
+1 Excited to see this happen! - kn On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Leigh Stewart wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Jon Derrick > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > LGTM. compiled the source packages and ran dbench. the license files look > > good. > > > > - jd > > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 20

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-17 Thread Jay Juma
+1 checked followings: - packages are good, checksum and signatures are good - apache-rat passed - compiled and ran tests - Jay On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version 0.4.0, > as follows: > > [ ] +1,

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-17 Thread Flavio Junqueira
+1, I have checked the following: - Built both 2.10 and 2.11 from source (skipped tests) - Checksums and signatures - NOTICE and LICENSE - Rat Questions: 1- I'm wondering if the text about Hadoop in NOTICE is necessary. How did you guys end up including it? 2- The tgz bundles do not include any

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-17 Thread Leigh Stewart
+1 On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Jon Derrick wrote: > +1 > > LGTM. compiled the source packages and ran dbench. the license files look > good. > > - jd > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the vers

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-16 Thread Jon Derrick
+1 LGTM. compiled the source packages and ran dbench. the license files look good. - jd On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version 0.4.0, > as follows: > > [ ] +1, Approve the release > [ ] -1, Do not appr

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-15 Thread Xi Liu
+1 - verified the source package (both 2.10 and 2.11) - verified the binary package using dlog and bench - md5, asc look good (I am okay with dealing with log4j in next release) - Xi On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review and vote on the release candida

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-13 Thread liang xie
Filed DL-188. On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > On Jan 12, 2017 6:59 PM, "liang xie" wrote: > > I am not good at here, per my knowledge, we should add the bindings > into benchmark package, at least in next release. > > > Agree. Do you mind creating a Jira for this? > > > On F

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-12 Thread Sijie Guo
On Jan 12, 2017 6:59 PM, "liang xie" wrote: I am not good at here, per my knowledge, we should add the bindings into benchmark package, at least in next release. Agree. Do you mind creating a Jira for this? On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Sijie Guo wrote: > I think we turned the log4j bind

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-12 Thread liang xie
I am not good at here, per my knowledge, we should add the bindings into benchmark package, at least in next release. On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Sijie Guo wrote: > I think we turned the log4j binding scope to test sometime ago. The thought > was not to conflict bindings when DL is used as

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-12 Thread Sijie Guo
I think we turned the log4j binding scope to test sometime ago. The thought was not to conflict bindings when DL is used as a library in other projects. For binaries, it seems worth brining the bindings in. What does other projects do for slf4j bindings? Sijie On Jan 12, 2017 12:58 AM, "liang xi

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-12 Thread liang xie
Verified source package with provided command and looks good to me. Seems missing slf4j-log4j12-1.6.4.jar in benchmark lib directory ? since i saw this error if execute "dbench write": SLF4J: Failed to load class "org.slf4j.impl.StaticLoggerBinder". SLF4J: Defaulting to no-operation (NOP) logger

[VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2

2017-01-10 Thread Sijie Guo
Hi all, Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version 0.4.0, 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],