sqoop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Abraham Elmahrek <...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Sqoop 1.4.6 release lacking 0.20 artifacts
Date Fri, 08 May 2015 18:46:08 GMT
I've pushed the release artifacts to
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/sqoop/1.4.6/.

-Abe

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Abraham Elmahrek <abe@cloudera.com> wrote:

> We have 3 +1s from PMC... I'm going to push the 1.4.6 release artifacts.
> Thanks Gwen for finding the issue and every one for jumping in!
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Abraham Elmahrek <abe@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> Hmm let's close this thread. Do we need an official vote thread? Or can
>> we move forward without it?
>>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <jarcec@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 on continuing with the release without 0.20 artifacts
>>>
>>> The Hadoop 0.20 profile is actually not Apache Hadoop 0.20, it’s
>>> specific to CDH3 instead [1]. It’s there from the time when Sqoop was
>>> Cloudera project running on github and we’ve just not updated it since
>>> then. Knowing that those bits might not work on pure Apache Hadoop 0.20, I
>>> would even go as far as dropping that profile completely if nobody objects.
>>>
>>> Jarcec
>>>
>>> Links:
>>> 1: https://github.com/apache/sqoop/blob/trunk/build.xml#L126
>>>
>>> > On May 4, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Venkat Ranganathan <
>>> vranganathan@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > +1.  Good work identifying this Gwen.
>>> >
>>> > If this is an issue, we can remedy it in 1.4.7
>>> >
>>> > Venkat
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 5/4/15, 11:29 AM, "Abraham Elmahrek" <abe@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> I'm +1 on this. I doubt there are many users of 0.20 these days.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Gwen Shapira <gshapira@cloudera.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Hi Sqoop Developers,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> There was a slight oversight on my part as a release mentor and
>>> Sqoop 1.4.6
>>> >>> passed a vote with 0.20 artifacts missing.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I suggest that since the vote passed, we can release the artifacts
>>> we voted
>>> >>> on, even though 0.20 is missing. Under the assumption that if 0.20
>>> was
>>> >>> critical, the issue would be raised during the voting process (I
>>> believe
>>> >>> 0.20 is pretty much extinct by now).
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Any objections?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Gwen
>>> >>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message