[VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

Matt Foley-2
Hi all,
I have posted the signed tarballs for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 at
http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/
Release notes are at:
releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html<http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html>

I'm having a little trouble with Nexus (it seems to have forgotten I exist)
but am working on that and will post to Nexus as soon as possible.

In the meantime, unless there are objections, I'd like to start the vote.
Please review this release candidate and vote it for release.  Vote will end
in seven days as usual, at 11:30am PDT on Monday 13 May.

Best regards,
--Matt
(release manager)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

Matt Foley-2
Friends,
Nexus issues are resolved, and the Nexus staging repository for Hadoop
1.2.0-rc1 properly uploaded.  Thanks for your patience.
--Matt


On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
> I have posted the signed tarballs for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 at
> http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/
>  Release notes are at:  releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html<http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html>
>
> I'm having a little trouble with Nexus (it seems to have forgotten I
> exist) but am working on that and will post to Nexus as soon as possible.
>
> In the meantime, unless there are objections, I'd like to start the vote.
> Please review this release candidate and vote it for release.  Vote will
> end
> in seven days as usual, at 11:30am PDT on Monday 13 May.
>
> Best regards,
> --Matt
> (release manager)
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

Matt Foley
Hi all,
just a reminder this vote is underway and will close Monday 11:30am.
Please review and vote!

Thanks,
--Matt


On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Friends,
> Nexus issues are resolved, and the Nexus staging repository for Hadoop
> 1.2.0-rc1 properly uploaded.  Thanks for your patience.
> --Matt
>
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> I have posted the signed tarballs for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 at
>> http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/
>>  Release notes are at:  releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html<http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html>
>>
>> I'm having a little trouble with Nexus (it seems to have forgotten I
>> exist) but am working on that and will post to Nexus as soon as possible.
>>
>> In the meantime, unless there are objections, I'd like to start the vote.
>> Please review this release candidate and vote it for release.  Vote will
>> end
>> in seven days as usual, at 11:30am PDT on Monday 13 May.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> --Matt
>> (release manager)
>>
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

Suresh Srinivas-2
Matt,

Thanks for getting the release out.

I downloaded the tarballs and verified the checksums. I ran the following
tests on a single node cluster:
- Ensured a newly installed cluster can be started and is functional. Also
checked the cluster restarts.
- Checked webUI for HDFS and MapReduce.
- Tested some common file system CLIs on HDFS.
- Ran TestDFSIO, NNBench jobs.

+1 (binding) for the release.

Regards,
Suresh


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
> just a reminder this vote is underway and will close Monday 11:30am.
> Please review and vote!
>
> Thanks,
> --Matt
>
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Friends,
> > Nexus issues are resolved, and the Nexus staging repository for Hadoop
> > 1.2.0-rc1 properly uploaded.  Thanks for your patience.
> > --Matt
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >> I have posted the signed tarballs for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 at
> >> http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/
> >>  Release notes are at:  releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html<
> http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html
> >
> >>
> >> I'm having a little trouble with Nexus (it seems to have forgotten I
> >> exist) but am working on that and will post to Nexus as soon as
> possible.
> >>
> >> In the meantime, unless there are objections, I'd like to start the
> vote.
> >> Please review this release candidate and vote it for release.  Vote will
> >> end
> >> in seven days as usual, at 11:30am PDT on Monday 13 May.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> --Matt
> >> (release manager)
> >>
> >>
> >
>



--
http://hortonworks.com/download/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

Jason Lowe
In reply to this post by Matt Foley
Matt, would you consider adding HADOOP-9504 to the release?  Some groups
using HBase have been bitten by this bug and would like to see it in a
1.x release.

Jason

On 05/10/2013 11:44 AM, Matt Foley wrote:

> Hi all,
> just a reminder this vote is underway and will close Monday 11:30am.
> Please review and vote!
>
> Thanks,
> --Matt
>
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Friends,
>> Nexus issues are resolved, and the Nexus staging repository for Hadoop
>> 1.2.0-rc1 properly uploaded.  Thanks for your patience.
>> --Matt
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> I have posted the signed tarballs for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 at
>>> http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/
>>>   Release notes are at:  releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html<http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html>
>>>
>>> I'm having a little trouble with Nexus (it seems to have forgotten I
>>> exist) but am working on that and will post to Nexus as soon as possible.
>>>
>>> In the meantime, unless there are objections, I'd like to start the vote.
>>> Please review this release candidate and vote it for release.  Vote will
>>> end
>>> in seven days as usual, at 11:30am PDT on Monday 13 May.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> --Matt
>>> (release manager)
>>>
>>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

Matt Foley
Hi Jason,
It's taken me so long to get this 1.2.0 RC out, that I'd like to finish it
and move on with a 1.2.1 stabilization release.
If I commit to doing 1.2.1 in 3 to 4 weeks, including this HADOOP-9504, would
that be acceptable to you?

Regards,
--Matt


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Jason Lowe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Matt, would you consider adding HADOOP-9504 to the release?  Some groups
> using HBase have been bitten by this bug and would like to see it in a 1.x
> release.
>
> Jason
>
>
> On 05/10/2013 11:44 AM, Matt Foley wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> just a reminder this vote is underway and will close Monday 11:30am.
>> Please review and vote!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --Matt
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>  Friends,
>>> Nexus issues are resolved, and the Nexus staging repository for Hadoop
>>> 1.2.0-rc1 properly uploaded.  Thanks for your patience.
>>> --Matt
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi all,
>>>> I have posted the signed tarballs for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 at
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~**mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/<http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/>
>>>>   Release notes are at:  releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html<ht**
>>>> tp://people.apache.org/~mattf/**hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/releasenotes_**
>>>> 1.2.0-rc1.html<http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm having a little trouble with Nexus (it seems to have forgotten I
>>>> exist) but am working on that and will post to Nexus as soon as
>>>> possible.
>>>>
>>>> In the meantime, unless there are objections, I'd like to start the
>>>> vote.
>>>> Please review this release candidate and vote it for release.  Vote will
>>>> end
>>>> in seven days as usual, at 11:30am PDT on Monday 13 May.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> --Matt
>>>> (release manager)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

Jason Lowe
That seems reasonable to me. Thanks for considering it!

Jason

On May 11, 2013, at 2:04 PM, "Matt Foley" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

Hi Jason,
It's taken me so long to get this 1.2.0 RC out, that I'd like to finish it and move on with a 1.2.1 stabilization release.
If I commit to doing 1.2.1 in 3 to 4 weeks, including this HADOOP-9504, would that be acceptable to you?

Regards,
--Matt


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Jason Lowe <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
Matt, would you consider adding HADOOP-9504 to the release?  Some groups using HBase have been bitten by this bug and would like to see it in a 1.x release.

Jason


On 05/10/2013 11:44 AM, Matt Foley wrote:
Hi all,
just a reminder this vote is underway and will close Monday 11:30am.
Please review and vote!

Thanks,
--Matt


On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

Friends,
Nexus issues are resolved, and the Nexus staging repository for Hadoop
1.2.0-rc1 properly uploaded.  Thanks for your patience.
--Matt


On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

Hi all,
I have posted the signed tarballs for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 at
http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/
  Release notes are at:  releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html<http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html>


I'm having a little trouble with Nexus (it seems to have forgotten I
exist) but am working on that and will post to Nexus as soon as possible.

In the meantime, unless there are objections, I'd like to start the vote.
Please review this release candidate and vote it for release.  Vote will
end
in seven days as usual, at 11:30am PDT on Monday 13 May.

Best regards,
--Matt
(release manager)




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

Chris Nauroth
+1 (non-binding)

-downloaded binary distro
-verified checksum and signature
-deployed a new multi-node cluster: 1*NN, 1*JT, 2*DN, 2*TT, 1*2NN
-ran multiple HDFS commands and verified correct behavior
-ran a few sample MR jobs
-verified that 2NN could take a good checkpoint

Thanks for preparing this release, Matt!

Chris Nauroth
Hortonworks
http://hortonworks.com/



On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Jason Lowe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> That seems reasonable to me. Thanks for considering it!
>
> Jason
>
> On May 11, 2013, at 2:04 PM, "Matt Foley" <[hidden email]<mailto:
> [hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> Hi Jason,
> It's taken me so long to get this 1.2.0 RC out, that I'd like to finish it
> and move on with a 1.2.1 stabilization release.
> If I commit to doing 1.2.1 in 3 to 4 weeks, including this HADOOP-9504,
> would that be acceptable to you?
>
> Regards,
> --Matt
>
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Jason Lowe <[hidden email]<mailto:
> [hidden email]>> wrote:
> Matt, would you consider adding HADOOP-9504 to the release?  Some groups
> using HBase have been bitten by this bug and would like to see it in a 1.x
> release.
>
> Jason
>
>
> On 05/10/2013 11:44 AM, Matt Foley wrote:
> Hi all,
> just a reminder this vote is underway and will close Monday 11:30am.
> Please review and vote!
>
> Thanks,
> --Matt
>
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]<mailto:
> [hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> Friends,
> Nexus issues are resolved, and the Nexus staging repository for Hadoop
> 1.2.0-rc1 properly uploaded.  Thanks for your patience.
> --Matt
>
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]<mailto:
> [hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> I have posted the signed tarballs for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 at
> http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/
>   Release notes are at:  releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html<
> http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html
> >
>
>
> I'm having a little trouble with Nexus (it seems to have forgotten I
> exist) but am working on that and will post to Nexus as soon as possible.
>
> In the meantime, unless there are objections, I'd like to start the vote.
> Please review this release candidate and vote it for release.  Vote will
> end
> in seven days as usual, at 11:30am PDT on Monday 13 May.
>
> Best regards,
> --Matt
> (release manager)
>
>
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

Arun Murthy
In reply to this post by Matt Foley-2
+1 (binding)

Verified bits and ran sample jobs.

Thanks again, for continuing to do the thankless task Matt!

Arun

On May 6, 2013, at 11:11 AM, Matt Foley wrote:

> Hi all,
> I have posted the signed tarballs for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 at
> http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/
> Release notes are at:
> releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html<http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html>
>
> I'm having a little trouble with Nexus (it seems to have forgotten I exist)
> but am working on that and will post to Nexus as soon as possible.
>
> In the meantime, unless there are objections, I'd like to start the vote.
> Please review this release candidate and vote it for release.  Vote will end
> in seven days as usual, at 11:30am PDT on Monday 13 May.
>
> Best regards,
> --Matt
> (release manager)

--
Arun C. Murthy
Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

Chris Douglas
In reply to this post by Matt Foley-2
+1 on hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz (verified checksums, signature, ran some unit tests)

but hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz is missing the source code and can't be built. -C

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
> I have posted the signed tarballs for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 at
> http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/
> Release notes are at:
> releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html<http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html>
>
> I'm having a little trouble with Nexus (it seems to have forgotten I exist)
> but am working on that and will post to Nexus as soon as possible.
>
> In the meantime, unless there are objections, I'd like to start the vote.
> Please review this release candidate and vote it for release.  Vote will end
> in seven days as usual, at 11:30am PDT on Monday 13 May.
>
> Best regards,
> --Matt
> (release manager)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

Matt Foley
Hi Chris,
Unless I screwed up my build, hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz includes the built
artifacts as well as full buildable source and docs.
Hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz is intended to contain only the built artifacts
("binaries") and deliberately excludes the source
and docs, for those who wish a smaller tarball of binaries only.  The
artifacts in both are from the same build.

So I'll take your +1 on the source tarball :-)
Thanks,
--Matt


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Chris Douglas <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 on hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz (verified checksums, signature, ran some unit
> tests)
>
> but hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz is missing the source code and can't be built.
> -C
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I have posted the signed tarballs for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 at
> > http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/
> > Release notes are at:
> > releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html<
> http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html
> >
> >
> > I'm having a little trouble with Nexus (it seems to have forgotten I
> exist)
> > but am working on that and will post to Nexus as soon as possible.
> >
> > In the meantime, unless there are objections, I'd like to start the vote.
> > Please review this release candidate and vote it for release.  Vote will
> end
> > in seven days as usual, at 11:30am PDT on Monday 13 May.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > --Matt
> > (release manager)
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

Matt Foley-2
The vote passed and we have accepted Hadoop version 1.2.0 for release:
+1 binding: 4 (1 slightly late)
+1 non-binding: 1
0 none
-1 none

Thanks to all who voted.
I'll finish publishing the release tonight and announce it to general@ in
the morning.

Best regards,
--Matt
release manager


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Chris,
> Unless I screwed up my build, hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz includes the built
> artifacts as well as full buildable source and docs.
> Hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz is intended to contain only the built artifacts
> ("binaries") and deliberately excludes the source
> and docs, for those who wish a smaller tarball of binaries only.  The
> artifacts in both are from the same build.
>
> So I'll take your +1 on the source tarball :-)
> Thanks,
> --Matt
>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Chris Douglas <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> +1 on hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz (verified checksums, signature, ran some unit
>> tests)
>>
>> but hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz is missing the source code and can't be
>> built. -C
>>
>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> > I have posted the signed tarballs for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 at
>> > http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/
>> > Release notes are at:
>> > releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html<
>> http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm having a little trouble with Nexus (it seems to have forgotten I
>> exist)
>> > but am working on that and will post to Nexus as soon as possible.
>> >
>> > In the meantime, unless there are objections, I'd like to start the
>> vote.
>> > Please review this release candidate and vote it for release.  Vote
>> will end
>> > in seven days as usual, at 11:30am PDT on Monday 13 May.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > --Matt
>> > (release manager)
>>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

Chris Douglas
Thanks, Matt. As always, your work on this is hugely appreciated.

As I understand it, we can't distribute binary-only artifacts. Among
the reasons: the PMC can't verify binaries as project output, the
non-profit charter is about source code, and users need to be able to
modify what we distribute. I can try to track down a reference, but
I'm pretty sure on this one... source-only is OK. Some have argued
it's the only acceptable form. -C

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The vote passed and we have accepted Hadoop version 1.2.0 for release:
> +1 binding: 4 (1 slightly late)
> +1 non-binding: 1
> 0 none
> -1 none
>
> Thanks to all who voted.
> I'll finish publishing the release tonight and announce it to general@ in
> the morning.
>
> Best regards,
> --Matt
> release manager
>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris,
>> Unless I screwed up my build, hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz includes the built
>> artifacts as well as full buildable source and docs.
>> Hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz is intended to contain only the built artifacts
>> ("binaries") and deliberately excludes the source
>> and docs, for those who wish a smaller tarball of binaries only.  The
>> artifacts in both are from the same build.
>>
>> So I'll take your +1 on the source tarball :-)
>> Thanks,
>> --Matt
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Chris Douglas <[hidden email]>wrote:
>>
>>> +1 on hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz (verified checksums, signature, ran some unit
>>> tests)
>>>
>>> but hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz is missing the source code and can't be
>>> built. -C
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> > Hi all,
>>> > I have posted the signed tarballs for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 at
>>> > http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/
>>> > Release notes are at:
>>> > releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html<
>>> http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I'm having a little trouble with Nexus (it seems to have forgotten I
>>> exist)
>>> > but am working on that and will post to Nexus as soon as possible.
>>> >
>>> > In the meantime, unless there are objections, I'd like to start the
>>> vote.
>>> > Please review this release candidate and vote it for release.  Vote
>>> will end
>>> > in seven days as usual, at 11:30am PDT on Monday 13 May.
>>> >
>>> > Best regards,
>>> > --Matt
>>> > (release manager)
>>>
>>
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

Matt Foley
Hmm.  My understanding was that only sources constituted a "release" and
that all release votes were to be understood as votes on a body of source
code. However, we've always (at least for the last 2+ years that I've been
involved in the RM side) distributed binary tarball (and often rpms and
debs), ALONG WITH the source tarball, for the convenience of our many users
who don't care to do builds before using a release.  The binaries and
source-containing artifacts are all signed for tamper-resistance, and when
a Release Manager distributes a set of stuff, the binaries should be
understood to come from the same build as the source tarball -- as is
indeed the case here.

Furthermore, I believe the Hadoop-related projects make use of a Maven
server.  I don't believe it's distributing source only :-)

I totally agree that the official release is the sources.  But to go from
there to a prohibition on distributing objects would, I think, cripple the
project, and certainly goes against the tradition of common usage in
opensource projects, including many Apache projects.

Respectfully,
--Matt



On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Chris Douglas <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks, Matt. As always, your work on this is hugely appreciated.
>
> As I understand it, we can't distribute binary-only artifacts. Among
> the reasons: the PMC can't verify binaries as project output, the
> non-profit charter is about source code, and users need to be able to
> modify what we distribute. I can try to track down a reference, but
> I'm pretty sure on this one... source-only is OK. Some have argued
> it's the only acceptable form. -C
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > The vote passed and we have accepted Hadoop version 1.2.0 for release:
> > +1 binding: 4 (1 slightly late)
> > +1 non-binding: 1
> > 0 none
> > -1 none
> >
> > Thanks to all who voted.
> > I'll finish publishing the release tonight and announce it to general@in
> > the morning.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > --Matt
> > release manager
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Chris,
> >> Unless I screwed up my build, hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz includes the built
> >> artifacts as well as full buildable source and docs.
> >> Hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz is intended to contain only the built artifacts
> >> ("binaries") and deliberately excludes the source
> >> and docs, for those who wish a smaller tarball of binaries only.  The
> >> artifacts in both are from the same build.
> >>
> >> So I'll take your +1 on the source tarball :-)
> >> Thanks,
> >> --Matt
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Chris Douglas <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1 on hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz (verified checksums, signature, ran some unit
> >>> tests)
> >>>
> >>> but hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz is missing the source code and can't be
> >>> built. -C
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> > Hi all,
> >>> > I have posted the signed tarballs for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 at
> >>> > http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/
> >>> > Release notes are at:
> >>> > releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html<
> >>>
> http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > I'm having a little trouble with Nexus (it seems to have forgotten I
> >>> exist)
> >>> > but am working on that and will post to Nexus as soon as possible.
> >>> >
> >>> > In the meantime, unless there are objections, I'd like to start the
> >>> vote.
> >>> > Please review this release candidate and vote it for release.  Vote
> >>> will end
> >>> > in seven days as usual, at 11:30am PDT on Monday 13 May.
> >>> >
> >>> > Best regards,
> >>> > --Matt
> >>> > (release manager)
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

Chris Douglas
FWIW: http://s.apache.org/nnN

The rest of the thread (and related discussion that month) is fairly
unambiguous about what the PMC is allowed to approve. Elsewhere,
there's clarification that the prohibition is against binaries for
which we don't also distribute source, so (AFAICT) distributing
third-party jars is also not kosher. I'll ask for clarification. -C

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hmm.  My understanding was that only sources constituted a "release" and
> that all release votes were to be understood as votes on a body of source
> code. However, we've always (at least for the last 2+ years that I've been
> involved in the RM side) distributed binary tarball (and often rpms and
> debs), ALONG WITH the source tarball, for the convenience of our many users
> who don't care to do builds before using a release.  The binaries and
> source-containing artifacts are all signed for tamper-resistance, and when
> a Release Manager distributes a set of stuff, the binaries should be
> understood to come from the same build as the source tarball -- as is
> indeed the case here.
>
> Furthermore, I believe the Hadoop-related projects make use of a Maven
> server.  I don't believe it's distributing source only :-)
>
> I totally agree that the official release is the sources.  But to go from
> there to a prohibition on distributing objects would, I think, cripple the
> project, and certainly goes against the tradition of common usage in
> opensource projects, including many Apache projects.
>
> Respectfully,
> --Matt
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Chris Douglas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Matt. As always, your work on this is hugely appreciated.
>>
>> As I understand it, we can't distribute binary-only artifacts. Among
>> the reasons: the PMC can't verify binaries as project output, the
>> non-profit charter is about source code, and users need to be able to
>> modify what we distribute. I can try to track down a reference, but
>> I'm pretty sure on this one... source-only is OK. Some have argued
>> it's the only acceptable form. -C
>>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > The vote passed and we have accepted Hadoop version 1.2.0 for release:
>> > +1 binding: 4 (1 slightly late)
>> > +1 non-binding: 1
>> > 0 none
>> > -1 none
>> >
>> > Thanks to all who voted.
>> > I'll finish publishing the release tonight and announce it to general@in
>> > the morning.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > --Matt
>> > release manager
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Chris,
>> >> Unless I screwed up my build, hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz includes the built
>> >> artifacts as well as full buildable source and docs.
>> >> Hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz is intended to contain only the built artifacts
>> >> ("binaries") and deliberately excludes the source
>> >> and docs, for those who wish a smaller tarball of binaries only.  The
>> >> artifacts in both are from the same build.
>> >>
>> >> So I'll take your +1 on the source tarball :-)
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> --Matt
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Chris Douglas <[hidden email]
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> +1 on hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz (verified checksums, signature, ran some unit
>> >>> tests)
>> >>>
>> >>> but hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz is missing the source code and can't be
>> >>> built. -C
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>> > Hi all,
>> >>> > I have posted the signed tarballs for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 at
>> >>> > http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/
>> >>> > Release notes are at:
>> >>> > releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html<
>> >>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I'm having a little trouble with Nexus (it seems to have forgotten I
>> >>> exist)
>> >>> > but am working on that and will post to Nexus as soon as possible.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > In the meantime, unless there are objections, I'd like to start the
>> >>> vote.
>> >>> > Please review this release candidate and vote it for release.  Vote
>> >>> will end
>> >>> > in seven days as usual, at 11:30am PDT on Monday 13 May.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Best regards,
>> >>> > --Matt
>> >>> > (release manager)
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

Matt Foley
Thanks for the reference.

Roy's email clearly says that the thing to be voted on should be source
only. This email is in the context of a discussion about a release
candidate that incorporated jars (from a third-party project) WITHOUT
sources.  In particular, the offending project had apparently captured
certain object files that were depended upon, and included them in the
"source" repository.  This is not what Hadoop builds do.

The document http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html which is stated to be
normative, says,

All releases are in the form of the source materials needed to make changes
to the software being released. In some cases, binary/bytecode packages are
also produced as a convenience to users that might not have the appropriate
tools to build a compiled version of the source. In all such cases, the
binary/bytecode package must have the same version number as the source
release and may only add binary/bytecode files that are the result of
compiling that version of the source code release.


And the document
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practicewhich
is referenced multiple times in Roy's email (although it states
itself to be non-normative), obviously contemplates that binaries may be
released along with the sources, because in the section about the "release
artifacts distribution directory" it says,

Many projects [optionally] use structured layouts... The common theme is
that each type of artifact is grouped into a subdirectory. For example,
binary packages into binaries and source packages into source (say).


So it is very clear that we may continue producing convenience binary
artifacts, as long as they are a result of and of identical provenance as
the sources.
And I hope we all understand that the file hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz met that
criteria, and was only for convenience and was not the subject of the vote.

However, the file hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz, which was the subject of the vote,
included both source (full, buildable source), and a corresponding set of
built artifacts produced from that source on a CentOS 6 platform under my
control per (in the normative document)
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#owned-controlled-hardware .  Once
again, it was the intent that only the sources were the subject of the
vote, and the binaries themselves are clearly of the kind anticipated by
these policies.

BUT if the fact of packaging them together invalidated the vote, I will
re-create it and run a vote again.

Regardless, I will going forward change the build.xml file to produce a
pure source tarball so that can be the unambiguous subject of the vote.

Roy, if you're listening in, can you please say whether I need to re-do
this vote?

Thanks,
--Matt



On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Chris Douglas <[hidden email]> wrote:

> FWIW: http://s.apache.org/nnN
>
> The rest of the thread (and related discussion that month) is fairly
> unambiguous about what the PMC is allowed to approve. Elsewhere,
> there's clarification that the prohibition is against binaries for
> which we don't also distribute source, so (AFAICT) distributing
> third-party jars is also not kosher. I'll ask for clarification. -C
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Hmm.  My understanding was that only sources constituted a "release" and
> > that all release votes were to be understood as votes on a body of source
> > code. However, we've always (at least for the last 2+ years that I've
> been
> > involved in the RM side) distributed binary tarball (and often rpms and
> > debs), ALONG WITH the source tarball, for the convenience of our many
> users
> > who don't care to do builds before using a release.  The binaries and
> > source-containing artifacts are all signed for tamper-resistance, and
> when
> > a Release Manager distributes a set of stuff, the binaries should be
> > understood to come from the same build as the source tarball -- as is
> > indeed the case here.
> >
> > Furthermore, I believe the Hadoop-related projects make use of a Maven
> > server.  I don't believe it's distributing source only :-)
> >
> > I totally agree that the official release is the sources.  But to go from
> > there to a prohibition on distributing objects would, I think, cripple
> the
> > project, and certainly goes against the tradition of common usage in
> > opensource projects, including many Apache projects.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> > --Matt
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Chris Douglas <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks, Matt. As always, your work on this is hugely appreciated.
> >>
> >> As I understand it, we can't distribute binary-only artifacts. Among
> >> the reasons: the PMC can't verify binaries as project output, the
> >> non-profit charter is about source code, and users need to be able to
> >> modify what we distribute. I can try to track down a reference, but
> >> I'm pretty sure on this one... source-only is OK. Some have argued
> >> it's the only acceptable form. -C
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > The vote passed and we have accepted Hadoop version 1.2.0 for release:
> >> > +1 binding: 4 (1 slightly late)
> >> > +1 non-binding: 1
> >> > 0 none
> >> > -1 none
> >> >
> >> > Thanks to all who voted.
> >> > I'll finish publishing the release tonight and announce it to
> general@in
> >> > the morning.
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> > --Matt
> >> > release manager
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Chris,
> >> >> Unless I screwed up my build, hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz includes the built
> >> >> artifacts as well as full buildable source and docs.
> >> >> Hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz is intended to contain only the built
> artifacts
> >> >> ("binaries") and deliberately excludes the source
> >> >> and docs, for those who wish a smaller tarball of binaries only.  The
> >> >> artifacts in both are from the same build.
> >> >>
> >> >> So I'll take your +1 on the source tarball :-)
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> --Matt
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Chris Douglas <[hidden email]
> >> >wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> +1 on hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz (verified checksums, signature, ran some
> unit
> >> >>> tests)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> but hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz is missing the source code and can't be
> >> >>> built. -C
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> >>> > Hi all,
> >> >>> > I have posted the signed tarballs for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 at
> >> >>> > http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/
> >> >>> > Release notes are at:
> >> >>> > releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html<
> >> >>>
> >>
> http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > I'm having a little trouble with Nexus (it seems to have
> forgotten I
> >> >>> exist)
> >> >>> > but am working on that and will post to Nexus as soon as possible.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > In the meantime, unless there are objections, I'd like to start
> the
> >> >>> vote.
> >> >>> > Please review this release candidate and vote it for release.
>  Vote
> >> >>> will end
> >> >>> > in seven days as usual, at 11:30am PDT on Monday 13 May.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Best regards,
> >> >>> > --Matt
> >> >>> > (release manager)
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

Chris Douglas
Wow; thanks for taking this to ground, Matt.

I don't think we need to rerun the vote. While you've paged it in,
would you mind adding some of this context to the HowToRelease wiki?
-C

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks for the reference.
>
> Roy's email clearly says that the thing to be voted on should be source
> only. This email is in the context of a discussion about a release
> candidate that incorporated jars (from a third-party project) WITHOUT
> sources.  In particular, the offending project had apparently captured
> certain object files that were depended upon, and included them in the
> "source" repository.  This is not what Hadoop builds do.
>
> The document http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html which is stated to be
> normative, says,
>
> All releases are in the form of the source materials needed to make changes
> to the software being released. In some cases, binary/bytecode packages are
> also produced as a convenience to users that might not have the appropriate
> tools to build a compiled version of the source. In all such cases, the
> binary/bytecode package must have the same version number as the source
> release and may only add binary/bytecode files that are the result of
> compiling that version of the source code release.
>
>
> And the document
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practicewhich
> is referenced multiple times in Roy's email (although it states
> itself to be non-normative), obviously contemplates that binaries may be
> released along with the sources, because in the section about the "release
> artifacts distribution directory" it says,
>
> Many projects [optionally] use structured layouts... The common theme is
> that each type of artifact is grouped into a subdirectory. For example,
> binary packages into binaries and source packages into source (say).
>
>
> So it is very clear that we may continue producing convenience binary
> artifacts, as long as they are a result of and of identical provenance as
> the sources.
> And I hope we all understand that the file hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz met that
> criteria, and was only for convenience and was not the subject of the vote.
>
> However, the file hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz, which was the subject of the vote,
> included both source (full, buildable source), and a corresponding set of
> built artifacts produced from that source on a CentOS 6 platform under my
> control per (in the normative document)
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#owned-controlled-hardware .  Once
> again, it was the intent that only the sources were the subject of the
> vote, and the binaries themselves are clearly of the kind anticipated by
> these policies.
>
> BUT if the fact of packaging them together invalidated the vote, I will
> re-create it and run a vote again.
>
> Regardless, I will going forward change the build.xml file to produce a
> pure source tarball so that can be the unambiguous subject of the vote.
>
> Roy, if you're listening in, can you please say whether I need to re-do
> this vote?
>
> Thanks,
> --Matt
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Chris Douglas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> FWIW: http://s.apache.org/nnN
>>
>> The rest of the thread (and related discussion that month) is fairly
>> unambiguous about what the PMC is allowed to approve. Elsewhere,
>> there's clarification that the prohibition is against binaries for
>> which we don't also distribute source, so (AFAICT) distributing
>> third-party jars is also not kosher. I'll ask for clarification. -C
>>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > Hmm.  My understanding was that only sources constituted a "release" and
>> > that all release votes were to be understood as votes on a body of source
>> > code. However, we've always (at least for the last 2+ years that I've
>> been
>> > involved in the RM side) distributed binary tarball (and often rpms and
>> > debs), ALONG WITH the source tarball, for the convenience of our many
>> users
>> > who don't care to do builds before using a release.  The binaries and
>> > source-containing artifacts are all signed for tamper-resistance, and
>> when
>> > a Release Manager distributes a set of stuff, the binaries should be
>> > understood to come from the same build as the source tarball -- as is
>> > indeed the case here.
>> >
>> > Furthermore, I believe the Hadoop-related projects make use of a Maven
>> > server.  I don't believe it's distributing source only :-)
>> >
>> > I totally agree that the official release is the sources.  But to go from
>> > there to a prohibition on distributing objects would, I think, cripple
>> the
>> > project, and certainly goes against the tradition of common usage in
>> > opensource projects, including many Apache projects.
>> >
>> > Respectfully,
>> > --Matt
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Chris Douglas <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thanks, Matt. As always, your work on this is hugely appreciated.
>> >>
>> >> As I understand it, we can't distribute binary-only artifacts. Among
>> >> the reasons: the PMC can't verify binaries as project output, the
>> >> non-profit charter is about source code, and users need to be able to
>> >> modify what we distribute. I can try to track down a reference, but
>> >> I'm pretty sure on this one... source-only is OK. Some have argued
>> >> it's the only acceptable form. -C
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> > The vote passed and we have accepted Hadoop version 1.2.0 for release:
>> >> > +1 binding: 4 (1 slightly late)
>> >> > +1 non-binding: 1
>> >> > 0 none
>> >> > -1 none
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks to all who voted.
>> >> > I'll finish publishing the release tonight and announce it to
>> general@in
>> >> > the morning.
>> >> >
>> >> > Best regards,
>> >> > --Matt
>> >> > release manager
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi Chris,
>> >> >> Unless I screwed up my build, hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz includes the built
>> >> >> artifacts as well as full buildable source and docs.
>> >> >> Hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz is intended to contain only the built
>> artifacts
>> >> >> ("binaries") and deliberately excludes the source
>> >> >> and docs, for those who wish a smaller tarball of binaries only.  The
>> >> >> artifacts in both are from the same build.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So I'll take your +1 on the source tarball :-)
>> >> >> Thanks,
>> >> >> --Matt
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Chris Douglas <[hidden email]
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> +1 on hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz (verified checksums, signature, ran some
>> unit
>> >> >>> tests)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> but hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz is missing the source code and can't be
>> >> >>> built. -C
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>> > Hi all,
>> >> >>> > I have posted the signed tarballs for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 at
>> >> >>> > http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/
>> >> >>> > Release notes are at:
>> >> >>> > releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html<
>> >> >>>
>> >>
>> http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > I'm having a little trouble with Nexus (it seems to have
>> forgotten I
>> >> >>> exist)
>> >> >>> > but am working on that and will post to Nexus as soon as possible.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > In the meantime, unless there are objections, I'd like to start
>> the
>> >> >>> vote.
>> >> >>> > Please review this release candidate and vote it for release.
>>  Vote
>> >> >>> will end
>> >> >>> > in seven days as usual, at 11:30am PDT on Monday 13 May.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Best regards,
>> >> >>> > --Matt
>> >> >>> > (release manager)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

Matt Foley
Sure, will do. --M


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Chris Douglas <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Wow; thanks for taking this to ground, Matt.
>
> I don't think we need to rerun the vote. While you've paged it in,
> would you mind adding some of this context to the HowToRelease wiki?
> -C
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Thanks for the reference.
> >
> > Roy's email clearly says that the thing to be voted on should be source
> > only. This email is in the context of a discussion about a release
> > candidate that incorporated jars (from a third-party project) WITHOUT
> > sources.  In particular, the offending project had apparently captured
> > certain object files that were depended upon, and included them in the
> > "source" repository.  This is not what Hadoop builds do.
> >
> > The document http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html which is stated to
> be
> > normative, says,
> >
> > All releases are in the form of the source materials needed to make
> changes
> > to the software being released. In some cases, binary/bytecode packages
> are
> > also produced as a convenience to users that might not have the
> appropriate
> > tools to build a compiled version of the source. In all such cases, the
> > binary/bytecode package must have the same version number as the source
> > release and may only add binary/bytecode files that are the result of
> > compiling that version of the source code release.
> >
> >
> > And the document
> >
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practicewhich
> > is referenced multiple times in Roy's email (although it states
> > itself to be non-normative), obviously contemplates that binaries may be
> > released along with the sources, because in the section about the
> "release
> > artifacts distribution directory" it says,
> >
> > Many projects [optionally] use structured layouts... The common theme is
> > that each type of artifact is grouped into a subdirectory. For example,
> > binary packages into binaries and source packages into source (say).
> >
> >
> > So it is very clear that we may continue producing convenience binary
> > artifacts, as long as they are a result of and of identical provenance as
> > the sources.
> > And I hope we all understand that the file hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz met
> that
> > criteria, and was only for convenience and was not the subject of the
> vote.
> >
> > However, the file hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz, which was the subject of the vote,
> > included both source (full, buildable source), and a corresponding set of
> > built artifacts produced from that source on a CentOS 6 platform under my
> > control per (in the normative document)
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#owned-controlled-hardware .  Once
> > again, it was the intent that only the sources were the subject of the
> > vote, and the binaries themselves are clearly of the kind anticipated by
> > these policies.
> >
> > BUT if the fact of packaging them together invalidated the vote, I will
> > re-create it and run a vote again.
> >
> > Regardless, I will going forward change the build.xml file to produce a
> > pure source tarball so that can be the unambiguous subject of the vote.
> >
> > Roy, if you're listening in, can you please say whether I need to re-do
> > this vote?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --Matt
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Chris Douglas <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> FWIW: http://s.apache.org/nnN
> >>
> >> The rest of the thread (and related discussion that month) is fairly
> >> unambiguous about what the PMC is allowed to approve. Elsewhere,
> >> there's clarification that the prohibition is against binaries for
> >> which we don't also distribute source, so (AFAICT) distributing
> >> third-party jars is also not kosher. I'll ask for clarification. -C
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hmm.  My understanding was that only sources constituted a "release"
> and
> >> > that all release votes were to be understood as votes on a body of
> source
> >> > code. However, we've always (at least for the last 2+ years that I've
> >> been
> >> > involved in the RM side) distributed binary tarball (and often rpms
> and
> >> > debs), ALONG WITH the source tarball, for the convenience of our many
> >> users
> >> > who don't care to do builds before using a release.  The binaries and
> >> > source-containing artifacts are all signed for tamper-resistance, and
> >> when
> >> > a Release Manager distributes a set of stuff, the binaries should be
> >> > understood to come from the same build as the source tarball -- as is
> >> > indeed the case here.
> >> >
> >> > Furthermore, I believe the Hadoop-related projects make use of a Maven
> >> > server.  I don't believe it's distributing source only :-)
> >> >
> >> > I totally agree that the official release is the sources.  But to go
> from
> >> > there to a prohibition on distributing objects would, I think, cripple
> >> the
> >> > project, and certainly goes against the tradition of common usage in
> >> > opensource projects, including many Apache projects.
> >> >
> >> > Respectfully,
> >> > --Matt
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Chris Douglas <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Thanks, Matt. As always, your work on this is hugely appreciated.
> >> >>
> >> >> As I understand it, we can't distribute binary-only artifacts. Among
> >> >> the reasons: the PMC can't verify binaries as project output, the
> >> >> non-profit charter is about source code, and users need to be able to
> >> >> modify what we distribute. I can try to track down a reference, but
> >> >> I'm pretty sure on this one... source-only is OK. Some have argued
> >> >> it's the only acceptable form. -C
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> >> > The vote passed and we have accepted Hadoop version 1.2.0 for
> release:
> >> >> > +1 binding: 4 (1 slightly late)
> >> >> > +1 non-binding: 1
> >> >> > 0 none
> >> >> > -1 none
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks to all who voted.
> >> >> > I'll finish publishing the release tonight and announce it to
> >> general@in
> >> >> > the morning.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Best regards,
> >> >> > --Matt
> >> >> > release manager
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Matt Foley <
> [hidden email]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Hi Chris,
> >> >> >> Unless I screwed up my build, hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz includes the
> built
> >> >> >> artifacts as well as full buildable source and docs.
> >> >> >> Hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz is intended to contain only the built
> >> artifacts
> >> >> >> ("binaries") and deliberately excludes the source
> >> >> >> and docs, for those who wish a smaller tarball of binaries only.
>  The
> >> >> >> artifacts in both are from the same build.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So I'll take your +1 on the source tarball :-)
> >> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> >> --Matt
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Chris Douglas <
> [hidden email]
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> +1 on hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz (verified checksums, signature, ran
> some
> >> unit
> >> >> >>> tests)
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> but hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz is missing the source code and can't
> be
> >> >> >>> built. -C
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Matt Foley <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>> > Hi all,
> >> >> >>> > I have posted the signed tarballs for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 at
> >> >> >>> > http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/
> >> >> >>> > Release notes are at:
> >> >> >>> > releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html<
> >> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >>
> http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > I'm having a little trouble with Nexus (it seems to have
> >> forgotten I
> >> >> >>> exist)
> >> >> >>> > but am working on that and will post to Nexus as soon as
> possible.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > In the meantime, unless there are objections, I'd like to start
> >> the
> >> >> >>> vote.
> >> >> >>> > Please review this release candidate and vote it for release.
> >>  Vote
> >> >> >>> will end
> >> >> >>> > in seven days as usual, at 11:30am PDT on Monday 13 May.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Best regards,
> >> >> >>> > --Matt
> >> >> >>> > (release manager)
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
>