@Zach, Thanks for your vote, too.
Zach York 于2019年6月13日周四 上午8:28写道：
> +1
>
> * Signature: ok
> * Checksum : ok
> * Rat check (1.8.0_92): ok
>- mvn clean apache-rat:check
> * Built from source (1.8.0_92): ok
>- mvn clean install -DskipTe
+1
* Signature: ok
* Checksum : ok
* Rat check (1.8.0_92): ok
- mvn clean apache-rat:check
* Built from source (1.8.0_92): ok
- mvn clean install -DskipTests
* Unit tests pass (1.8.0_92): failed
- mvn test -P runAllTest
With four binding +1s including my own, two non-binding +1s, and no 0 or -1
votes, this vote passes.
And there are some flaky unit tests which need time to fix. Because some of
them are hard to reproduce.
Thank you to all who voted on the release candidate!
Artem Ervits 于2019年6月13日周四 上午5:33写道：
+1 (non-binding)
* Signature: ok
* Checksum : ok
* Rat check (1.8.0_212): ok
- mvn clean apache-rat:check
* Built from source (1.8.0_212): ok
- mvn clean install -DskipTests
* Unit tests pass (1.8.0_212): ok
- mvn test -fn -P runAllTests
+1 (non-binding)
* Signature: ok
* Checksum : ok
* Rat check (1.8.0_212): ok
- mvn clean apache-rat:check
* Built from source (1.8.0_212): ok
- mvn clean install -DskipTests
* Unit tests pass (1.8.0_212): failed
- mvn test -P runAl
+1 (binding)
I had validated RC5, but missed reporting back in time. If release notes
and changes are the only differences, my old validation should be fine.
I spot checked the src release and re-validated sigs/xsums.
I thought that keeping this only open for 24hrs was clearly against
policy
+1(non-binding)
Vote script results:
* Signature: ok
* Checksum : ok
* Rat check (1.8.0_212): ok
- mvn clean apache-rat:check
* Built from source (1.8.0_212): ok
- mvn clean install -DskipTests
* Unit tests pass (1.8.0_212): failed
- mvn t
+1(binding)
Checked sigs and sums: Matched
Rat check: Passed
Built from src: OK
Stack 于2019年6月12日周三 上午4:15写道：
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:54 AM Guanghao Zhang wrote:
>
> > RC6 is almost same with RC5. So we can carry the RC5's three binding +1
> and
> > one non-binding +1 here? And one more +
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:54 AM Guanghao Zhang wrote:
> RC6 is almost same with RC5. So we can carry the RC5's three binding +1 and
> one non-binding +1 here? And one more +1 from me.
>
No vote carrying Guanghao. If same as RC5, shouldn't take long to gather up
the votes again.
+1 from me on
OK...
Guanghao Zhang 于2019年6月11日周二 下午6:07写道：
> >
> > Better adding a note at the bottom of CHANGES.md and RELEASENOTES.md to
> > mention that all the changes in 2.1.0 are also included in 2.2.0, as
> > discussed in another thread?
> >
> We didn't reached a conclusion yet in the DISCUSS thread? 2
>
> Better adding a note at the bottom of CHANGES.md and RELEASENOTES.md to
> mention that all the changes in 2.1.0 are also included in 2.2.0, as
> discussed in another thread?
>
We didn't reached a conclusion yet in the DISCUSS thread? 2.2.0 has been
delayed too long to release. I thought we can
RC6 is almost same with RC5. So we can carry the RC5's three binding +1 and
one non-binding +1 here? And one more +1 from me.
Better adding a note at the bottom of CHANGES.md and RELEASENOTES.md to
mention that all the changes in 2.1.0 are also included in 2.2.0, as
discussed in another thread?
Guanghao Zhang 于2019年6月11日周二 下午5:48写道：
> Please vote on this release candidate (RC) for Apache HBase 2.2.0.
> This is the firs
Please vote on this release candidate (RC) for Apache HBase 2.2.0.
This is the first release of the branch-2.2 line.
RC6 is almost same with RC5. The biggest change is the release note, which
added the release note of HBASE-21970 about how to upgrade 2.0 or 2.1
cluster to 2.2+. So this VOTE will o
14 matches
Mail list logo
