Ignite uses git revision number as version postfix. This should hepls to
find source code when problems found at binaries.
But Ignite sources should be buildable without git executable. In this case
user see this info. This info message of postfix genetation logic will be
changed.
Related issue is
The git error is known and documented, I believe. It is about having git
executable for some parts of the release creation - doesn't affect normal
builds. Perhaps there's a way to mask it with profiles or something..?
On July 18, 2015 1:28:36 AM PDT, Justin Mclean wrote:
>Hi,
>
>+1 binding
>
>I
Hi,
+1 binding
I checked:
- source release contains incubating
- signatures and md5 hash are good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE correct
- No unexpected binaries in source release
- All source files contain Apache headers
- Can compile from source (although had some difficultly in doing
There's DEVNOTES.txt that has all the info for the build. Hope it helps.
Thanks!
Cos
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 01:40PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I’ve having little trouble compiling it, but everything else checks out
> fine. Are there instructions anywhere on how to compile/what’s required
Hi,
I’ve having little trouble compiling it, but everything else checks out fine.
Are there instructions anywhere on how to compile/what’s required? I think I’m
just running into a memory issue.
Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe,
Can more IPMC folks look at the release as we getting to the end of the VOTE
period? Still one vote short. Thanks!
Cos
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 04:51PM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> Hello!
>
> The Apache Ignite PPMC has voted to release Apache Ignite 1.3.0-incubating.
> The vote was based on the relea
My -0 wasn't really reflecting on the quality of the release, but was rather
about this long standing issue with broken format of the checksum files (which
was making the validation harder) .
I see that the issue is getting addressed for the next release, hence I'm
changing my vote to
+1 (bind
My -0 wasn't really reflecting on the quality of the release, but rather an
issue with broken format of the checksum files (which was making the validation
harder) .
I see that the issue is getting addressed for the next release, hence I'm
changing my vote to
+1 (binding)
--
Regards,
Cos
