Thanx Stamatis, I think this: is binary voted or not was discussed long back as well: [1] , so maybe everyone derived a version from it and so do I :-)
There were references quoted from the past as well like here [2] Quoting Doug Cutting [3] from a release vote long back ``` Folks should not primarily evaluate binaries when voting. The ASF primarily produces and publishes source-code so voting artifacts should be optimized for evaluation of that. ``` But I see your point, thanx for the feedback. Will keep this thread open & we can revisit if ARM becomes the next big thing in future, who knows :-) -Ayush [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-323?focusedCommentId=16110652&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-16110652 [1.1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-323?focusedCommentId=16109157&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-16109157 [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/q5o64mh0hz1trwc99fs94l041nhlwgh1 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Cutting On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 21:21, Stamatis Zampetakis <zabe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey Ayush, > > I just wanted to highlight that the vote applies to all released > artifacts, not only the source packages. The source package is of > course the primary and most important deliverable but the PMC is > responsible for everything under downloads.apache.org and similar > places. Any additional binaries will need to be verified by the PMC to > ensure that there are no violations of the ASF policy. > > While I was working on preparing the 4.0.0-beta-1 it took me quite a > bit of time to ensure that our convenience binaries comply with the > ASF guidelines and I am not yet 100% sure that I covered everything. I > would be more eager to drop the existing convenience binaries rather > than introducing more. > > The additional binaries would also put additional strain on the ASF servers. > > I see the benefits for ARM binaries but I would prefer to keep > releases simple and let those who are interested in those build them > themselves. We can do whatever we can to facilitate the build process > of such binaries but not necessarily deliver and host them ourselves. > > I am somewhere -0 for this. I am not gonna vote against the idea but > not supporting it either. > > Best, > Stamatis > > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 4:48 PM Attila Turoczy > <aturo...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > Love it! In 2023 where ARM became an industrial standard. Also ARM perform > > very well plus the cloud arm vm's are so much cheaper. > > > > -Attila > > > > On 2023. Aug 25., Fri at 12:48, Ayush Saxena <ayush...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > > Considering now we do support building Hive on both x86 & ARM, can we > > > explore having additional binaries built for ARM architecture? > > > > > > A lot of projects do release both x86 & ARM binaries example hadoop > > > [1], can check the Binary Download column in the 3.3.6 row > > > > > > As for the process, the release vote is on the source code, which > > > stays the same for both x86 & ARM. It is just an additional > > > convenience binary built, signed & released. We can consider making > > > this step optional as well. > > > > > > Let me know what people think!!! > > > > > > -Ayush > > > > > > [1] https://hadoop.apache.org/releases.html > > >
