On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan
wrote:
> Hi Jon
>
> I have published my key in pub 4096R/867B57B8 in the MIT PGP public key
> server.
>
> Hope this is what you meant of publishing the key?
>
You've done the first part Ram.
See http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing#web-
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
> I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I think of
> have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
> - mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in the
> 0.92.0 release) -- attached to this ema
Hi Jon
I have published my key in pub 4096R/867B57B8 in the MIT PGP public key
server.
Hope this is what you meant of publishing the key?
Regards
Ram
-Original Message-
From: Todd Lipcon [mailto:t...@cloudera.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:41 AM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subje
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
> - Ram, I think if I understand the signing stuff properly, your gpg
> signature needs to be verifed/signed by someone else in the "web of trust".
Regarding signatures: if another committer reviews the release and is
willing to stand by it, t
Hi Jonathan, Todd,
Thank you for your replies. Yes, we are aware of the fact that submitting
our patches as trunk patches first will be easier for the community. In
fact, we have been trying to do so for a significant fraction of our recent
patches, and it looks like that approach works relatively
Hi Mikhail,
What you ask makes sense from your perspective but is difficult from
the community perspective. We're not familiar with your code base, so
it can be difficult to do a quality review on a non-trunk patch,
unless it's primarily new code.
Perhaps when there is a large patch with mostly n
Hey Mikhail,
I believe we may have a similar concerns supporting older versions of HBase
but I think it is almost always better to fix the problem on trunk branch
first, and then backport the patch to an older version that you need to
specifically support. (such as 0.90.x in my case or in your cas
Hello Everyone,
Some of you have probably been wondering about what these "[89-fb]" patches
that our team submits for review are, so I would like to clarify that a
little bit. We run a custom version of HBase based on 0.89 at Facebook,
codenamed "0.89-fb", but we do our best effort to submit all o
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Nicolas Spiegelberg
wrote:
> I'm advocating that RPC compatibility breakage is not acceptable for FB
> because this is a vital and highly-deployed infrastructure piece. I'm
> assuming this strategy may not be acceptable for other major contributors
> as well. I c
Thanks Ted!
I wonder if it would make more sense to port it to 0.90.X or upgrade to
0.92.
Cosmin
On 2/2/12 5:03 PM, "Ted Yu" wrote:
>HBASE-4838 ports HBASE-2856 to 0.92
>
>FYI
>
>On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Cosmin Lehene wrote:
>
>> (sorry for the damaged subject :))
>>
>>
>> Hey Jon,
>>
10 matches
Mail list logo
