Done.
Thanks for the reminder Dave.
Francis
On Friday, August 4, 2017 12:52 PM, Dave Fisher
wrote:
Hi Francis,
Would you mention your vote on the general@incubator thread? That will give 3
+1 IPMC Binding VOTEs!
Regards,
Dave
> On Aug 4, 2017, at 11:25 AM, Francis Liu wrote:
>
>
Hi Francis,
Would you mention your vote on the general@incubator thread? That will give 3
+1 IPMC Binding VOTEs!
Regards,
Dave
> On Aug 4, 2017, at 11:25 AM, Francis Liu wrote:
>
> I see thanks for confirming the flakey tests.
>> Shouldn't that be "apache-rat:check" the official tool?Yes you
I see thanks for confirming the flakey tests.
> Shouldn't that be "apache-rat:check" the official tool?Yes you are right my
>bad. It seems rat:check runs a very old version of the tool which ignored the
>rat configurations in the pom.
> Would it be ok to fix in next release?Yes. Not familiar wi
Thanks Francis,
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 5:39 PM Francis Liu wrote:
> Ran mvn clean install on my macbook pro (sierra) twice and it failed
> during unit testing. Are these just flakey? (jdk 1.8.0_45-b14)
> DiscoveryServiceTest.testClientServerConnectionTls:149 expected [true] but
> found [false]
>
Ran mvn clean install on my macbook pro (sierra) twice and it failed during
unit testing. Are these just flakey? (jdk 1.8.0_45-b14)
DiscoveryServiceTest.testClientServerConnectionTls:149 expected [true] but
found [false]
org.apache.pulsar.broker.admin.AdminApiTest.testIncrementPartitionsOfTopic(
Closing the vote.
Link to this thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/396ffc9c8fe171bc272691414a39307e0929d40639d9ec631ea3aa15@%3Cdev.pulsar.apache.org%3E
Binding votes:
+1s :
Matteo Merli
Dave Fisher
Rajan Dhabalia
Nozomi Kurihara
Masahiro Sakamoto
Yuki Shiga
Hiroyuki Sakai
+1 Release!
- Checked build success
- Ran the binaries on my local machine
Jai
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Sahaya Andrews wrote:
> +1
>
> Environment: RHEL 6.4
> - Verified checksum
> - Ran local build against the src distribution
> - Ran standalone server from the binary distribution
> -
+1
Environment: RHEL 6.4
- Verified checksum
- Ran local build against the src distribution
- Ran standalone server from the binary distribution
- Ran perf producer and consumer test against locally built binary and
binary distribution
I did not see any errors in producer/consumer/pulsar logs.
T
+0
Ran standalone server on macOS 10.12 / Java 8, with Java client.
I saw lots of warnings and a few errors during building from the source
package, I was able to run standalone server and successfully transferred a
message with pulsar-client though. It seems they are not critical. I'll
create is
uild success
>- Run the binaries and it looked fine
>
>Masahiro Sakamoto
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jia Zhai [mailto:zhaiji...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 10:59 AM
>> To: dev@pulsar.incubator.apache.org
>> Su
i [mailto:zhaiji...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 10:59 AM
> To: dev@pulsar.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Pulsar 1.19.0-incubating Release Candidate 0
>
> +1 (non-binding)
> - verified the packages (md5, sha1 and signature)
> -
+1
- Checked the build success
- Run the binaries and it looked fine
Masahiro Sakamoto
> -Original Message-
> From: Jia Zhai [mailto:zhaiji...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 10:59 AM
> To: dev@pulsar.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Pulsar 1.
+1 (non-binding)
- verified the packages (md5, sha1 and signature)
- Checked the build success
- Run the binaries by 'bin/pulsar standalone'
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Nozomi Kurihara
wrote:
> +1
>
> - Confirmed md5
> - Checked the build success
> - Ran the binaries
>
> Thanks!
>
> Nozomi
>
+1
- Confirmed md5
- Checked the build success
- Ran the binaries
Thanks!
Nozomi
2017/08/03 9:32 に、"Sijie Guo" を書き込みました:
+1 (non-binding)
- verified the packages (md5, sha1 and signature)
- maven artifacts looks good to me.
- successfully build the source package
- ru
+1 (non-binding)
- verified the packages (md5, sha1 and signature)
- maven artifacts looks good to me.
- successfully build the source package
- run the binary package following the instructions in the website
- Sijie
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Rajan Dhabalia wrote:
> +1. I ran the regres
+1. I ran the regression-tests and few of the load-tests with this version
and looks fine.
Thanks,
Rajan
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> Hi -
>
> I will cast an IPMC vote.
>
> +1 Release!
>
> I checked the source and binary package hashes.
> I built the project with Maven f
Hi -
I will cast an IPMC vote.
+1 Release!
I checked the source and binary package hashes.
I built the project with Maven from the source package.
I ran the rat check and checked the rat report.
Discussed the Category B issues which look good for now.
Regards,
Dave
> On Aug 2, 2017, at 12:47 P
Remainder for all committers:
please check the release artifacts and vote on this thread, before tomorrow
3pm PDT.
Vote as in :
[ ] +1 Release this package
[ ] 0 I don't feel strongly about it, but don't object
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
The documentation on the release proc
> On Aug 2, 2017, at 10:03 AM, Matteo Merli wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>>> We use AspectJ to instrument ZooKeeper server and client, in order to
>>> collect and expose metrics that are not available in ZooKeeper itself.
>>> At this point is not optional and
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> > We use AspectJ to instrument ZooKeeper server and client, in order to
> > collect and expose metrics that are not available in ZooKeeper itself.
> > At this point is not optional and it's not possible to turn it off.
>
> If someone took the S
Hi Matteo:
> On Jul 31, 2017, at 5:10 PM, Matteo Merli wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>> Hi Pulsar Team,
>>
>> I’ve been doing my checks so far so good. I do have two concerns:
>>
>> The license for Aspect J is the EPL 1.0 which is Category B -
>> https://ww
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> Hi Pulsar Team,
>
> I’ve been doing my checks so far so good. I do have two concerns:
>
> The license for Aspect J is the EPL 1.0 which is Category B -
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
>
> Is this optional?
>
We use Asp
Hi Pulsar Team,
I’ve been doing my checks so far so good. I do have two concerns:
The license for Aspect J is the EPL 1.0 which is Category B -
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
Is this optional?
Also - is everything in the binary’s notice file necessary?
I have a feeling
This is the first release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version
1.19.0-incubating.
Major changes included in this release are:
* Added stateless Pulsar proxy
* Support for non-persistent topics
* Upgraded RocksDB to comply with ASF policy
* Instrumentation of ZooKeeper client to expose metrics
24 matches
Mail list logo
