I suggest we do a 2.5.1 (with potentially other bug fixes) rather than fix
existing tarballs.
thanks,
Arun
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Karthik Kambatla
wrote:
> Hi devs
>
> Tsuyoshi just brought it to my notice that the published tarballs don't
> have LICENSE, NOTICE and README at the to
Hi,
Thanks Karthik for preparing new tar ball.
Verified MD5, SHA1, SHA224, SHA256, SHA384, SHA512 checksums.
It looks good to me.
Thanks,
- Tsuyoshi
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Karthik Kambatla wrote:
> Hi devs
>
> Tsuyoshi just brought it to my notice that the published tarballs don't
>
Verified MD5s and signatures of both SRC & BIN tarballs.
Thanks Karthik.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Karthik Kambatla
wrote:
> Hi devs
>
> Tsuyoshi just brought it to my notice that the published tarballs don't
> have LICENSE, NOTICE and README at the top-level. Instead, they are only
>
Hi devs
Tsuyoshi just brought it to my notice that the published tarballs don't
have LICENSE, NOTICE and README at the top-level. Instead, they are only
under common, hdfs, etc.
Now that we have already announced the release and the jars/functionality
doesn't change, I propose we just update the
