Here's a PR that fixes the license issue that Jacques found:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-iceberg/pull/548
Once that and the fix for Kryo serialization are reviewed, I'll start
another RC.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 3:14 PM John Zhuge wrote:
> Ryan fixed the kryo serialization issue in
> ht
Ryan fixed the kryo serialization issue in
https://github.com/apache/incubator-iceberg/pull/546.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 9:35 AM John Zhuge wrote:
> - Passed all 7 steps
> - Build source code at tag apache-iceberg-0.7.0-incubating-rc1 locally,
> unit tests passed. However, my downstream Spark 2.
Ran all steps successfully. +1
Thanks,
Romin
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:37 AM Ryan Blue
wrote:
> Thanks for looking at the licensing!
>
> All of the non-shaded convenience binaries include a copy of the LICENSE
> and NOTICE files from the source distribution. There is only one Jar that
> conta
Thanks for looking at the licensing!
All of the non-shaded convenience binaries include a copy of the LICENSE
and NOTICE files from the source distribution. There is only one Jar that
contains shaded dependencies, iceberg-spark-runtime, and we have separate
LICENSE and NOTICE files that get includ
Ran steps, did some greps and random discovery to see if I saw any issues.
Couple questions:
- Can someone remind me the rules around noting license of dependencies
for a binary release. It seems like a binary release is being proposed here
via maven but we don't have any LICENSE/NOTICE
BTW, the failure was:
Job aborted due to stage failure: Exception while getting task result:
com.esotericsoftware.kryo.KryoException:
java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException
Serialization trace:
splitOffsets (org.apache.iceberg.GenericDataFile)
files (com.netflix.iceberg.spark.source.Writer$TaskCo
- Passed all 7 steps
- Build source code at tag apache-iceberg-0.7.0-incubating-rc1 locally,
unit tests passed. However, my downstream Spark 2.3 branch failed
integration tests, possibly due to
https://github.com/apache/incubator-iceberg/issues/446. I will try Anton's
suggestion and report back.
O
Wanted to point out that the links on steps to validate below are pointing to
RC0 and not RC1. So let’s please double check that folks that validated did so
with the intended candidate?
( I’m replying on Ted Gooch’s reply since the last two replies lost the
original links.)
Xabriel J Collazo M
