Thank you everyone for testing this!

Closing the vote now, the results will be announced in a separate email.

Cheers,
Gyula

On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 4:30 PM Márton Balassi <balassi.mar...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thank you, team.
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> - Verified Helm repo works as expected, points to correct image tag, build,
> version
> - Verified basic examples + checked operator logs everything looks as
> expected
> - Verified hashes, signatures and source release contains no binaries
> - Ran built-in tests, built jars + docker image from source successfully
>
> Best,
> Marton
>
> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 3:25 PM Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > 1. Downloaded the archives, checksums, and signatures
> > 2. Verified the signatures and checksums
> > 3. Extract and inspect the source code for binaries
> > 4. Verified license files / headers
> > 5. Compiled and tested the source code via mvn verify
> > 6. Deployed helm chart to test cluster
> > 7. Ran example job
> >
> > -Max
> >
> > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 3:10 AM Jim Busche <jbus...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 (Non-binding)
> > > I tested the following:
> > >
> > > - helm repo install from flink-kubernetes-operator-1.5.0-helm.tgz (See
> > note 1 below)
> > > - podman Dockerfile build from source, looked good. (See note 2 below)
> > > - twistlock vulnerability scans of proposed
> > ghcr.io/apache/flink-kubernetes-operator:be07be7 looks good, except for
> > known Snake item.
> > > - UI, basic sample, basic session jobs look good. Logs look as
> expected.
> > > - Checksums looked good
> > > - Tested OLM build/install on OpenShift 4.10.54 and OpenShift 4.12.7
> > >
> > > Note 1: To install on OpenShift, I had to add an extra flink-operator
> > clusterrole resource.  See
> > https://github.com/apache/flink-kubernetes-operator/pull/600 and issue
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-32103
> > >
> > > Note 2: For some reason, I can't use podman on Red Hat 8 to build
> Flink,
> > but the Podman from Red Hat 9.0 worked fine.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks, Jim
> >
>

Reply via email to