[VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.3.0 Release (RC2)

[yzhdanov]

Dear Sirs!

We have uploaded release candidate to
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/ignite/1.3.0-rc2/

Tag name is
ignite-1.3.0-incubating-rc2

1.3.0 changes:
* Added auto-retries for cache operations in recoverable cases.
* Added integration with Apache YARN.
* Fixed several issues with JTA integration.
* Fixed several issues with Hibernate L2 cache.
* Stability fixes for TCP discovery SPI.
* Stability fixes for onheap and offheap SQL queries.
* Bug fixes in In-Memory Accelerator For Apache Hadoop.
* Many stability and fault-tolerance fixes.

DEVNOTES
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ignite.git;a=blob_plain;f=DEVNOTES.txt;hb=refs/tags/ignite-1.3.0-incubating-rc2

RELEASENOTES
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ignite.git;a=blob_plain;f=RELEASE_NOTES.txt;hb=refs/tags/ignite-1.3.0-incubating-rc2

Please start voting.

+1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.3.0
0 - don't care either way
-1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.3.0 (explain why)

This vote will go for 72 hours.

--Yakov

[Konstantin Boudnik-2]

On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 01:56AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> Dear Sirs!

If you're trying to please IPMC gramma-busybodies with this - don't bother:
they will find a reason why that isn't an appropriate way to address them ;)

Cos

[Branko Čibej]

On 11.07.2015 02:00, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 01:56AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
>> Dear Sirs!
> If you're trying to please IPMC gramma-busybodies with this - don't bother:
> they will find a reason why that isn't an appropriate way to address them ;)

I'm more interested in why 1.3.0-rc1 is still in dist/dev. You should
really immediately delete packages that aren't candidates for release,
anything else just creates confusion.

-- Brane

[Branko Čibej]

On 12.07.2015 08:18, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 11.07.2015 02:00, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 01:56AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
>>> Dear Sirs!
>> If you're trying to please IPMC gramma-busybodies with this - don't bother:
>> they will find a reason why that isn't an appropriate way to address them ;)
> I'm more interested in why 1.3.0-rc1 is still in dist/dev. You should
> really immediately delete packages that aren't candidates for release,
> anything else just creates confusion.

Sigh. The SHA1 and MD5 file format is still wrong. Please either look it
up if you're faking the format, or use the correct tools to generate it.

Specifically, there should be two spaces between the hash and the file name.

-- Brane

[Branko Čibej]

On 11.07.2015 00:56, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:

> Dear Sirs!
>
> We have uploaded release candidate to
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/ignite/1.3.0-rc2/
>
> Tag name is
> ignite-1.3.0-incubating-rc2
>
> 1.3.0 changes:
> * Added auto-retries for cache operations in recoverable cases.
> * Added integration with Apache YARN.
> * Fixed several issues with JTA integration.
> * Fixed several issues with Hibernate L2 cache.
> * Stability fixes for TCP discovery SPI.
> * Stability fixes for onheap and offheap SQL queries.
> * Bug fixes in In-Memory Accelerator For Apache Hadoop.
> * Many stability and fault-tolerance fixes.
>
> DEVNOTES
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ignite.git;a=blob_plain;f=DEVNOTES.txt;hb=refs/tags/ignite-1.3.0-incubating-rc2
>
> RELEASENOTES
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ignite.git;a=blob_plain;f=RELEASE_NOTES.txt;hb=refs/tags/ignite-1.3.0-incubating-rc2
>
> Please start voting.
>
> +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.3.0
> 0 - don't care either way
> -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.3.0 (explain why)
>
> This vote will go for 72 hours.
>
> --Yakov
>

+1

[Sergey Khisamov]

 +1

>Понедельник, 13 июля 2015, 10:30 +02:00 от Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:
>
>On 11.07.2015 00:56, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
>> Dear Sirs!
>>
>> We have uploaded release candidate to
>>  https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/ignite/1.3.0-rc2/
>>
>> Tag name is
>> ignite-1.3.0-incubating-rc2
>>
>> 1.3.0 changes:
>> * Added auto-retries for cache operations in recoverable cases.
>> * Added integration with Apache YARN.
>> * Fixed several issues with JTA integration.
>> * Fixed several issues with Hibernate L2 cache.
>> * Stability fixes for TCP discovery SPI.
>> * Stability fixes for onheap and offheap SQL queries.
>> * Bug fixes in In-Memory Accelerator For Apache Hadoop.
>> * Many stability and fault-tolerance fixes.
>>
>> DEVNOTES
>>  https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ignite.git;a=blob_plain;f=DEVNOTES.txt;hb=refs/tags/ignite-1.3.0-incubating-rc2
>>
>> RELEASENOTES
>>  https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ignite.git;a=blob_plain;f=RELEASE_NOTES.txt;hb=refs/tags/ignite-1.3.0-incubating-rc2
>>
>> Please start voting.
>>
>> +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.3.0
>> 0 - don't care either way
>> -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.3.0 (explain why)
>>
>> This vote will go for 72 hours.
>>
>> --Yakov
>>
>
>+1

Sergey Khisamov

[yzhdanov]

RC1 has been removed.

--Yakov

2015-07-12 9:18 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:

> On 11.07.2015 02:00, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 01:56AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> >> Dear Sirs!
> > If you're trying to please IPMC gramma-busybodies with this - don't
> bother:
> > they will find a reason why that isn't an appropriate way to address
> them ;)
>
> I'm more interested in why 1.3.0-rc1 is still in dist/dev. You should
> really immediately delete packages that aren't candidates for release,
> anything else just creates confusion.
>
> -- Brane
>

[yzhdanov]

I'll take a look. Thanks, Brane!

--Yakov

2015-07-13 11:27 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:

> On 12.07.2015 08:18, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > On 11.07.2015 02:00, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 01:56AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> >>> Dear Sirs!
> >> If you're trying to please IPMC gramma-busybodies with this - don't
> bother:
> >> they will find a reason why that isn't an appropriate way to address
> them ;)
> > I'm more interested in why 1.3.0-rc1 is still in dist/dev. You should
> > really immediately delete packages that aren't candidates for release,
> > anything else just creates confusion.
>
> Sigh. The SHA1 and MD5 file format is still wrong. Please either look it
> up if you're faking the format, or use the correct tools to generate it.
>
> Specifically, there should be two spaces between the hash and the file
> name.
>
> -- Brane
>

[dsetrakyan]

I think we should just stop using MD5 Hash and just keep using SHA1. In my
experience, the MD5 format is different on different operating systems,
while the SHA1 works the same in most of the cases.

D.

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'll take a look. Thanks, Brane!
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2015-07-13 11:27 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:
>
> > On 12.07.2015 08:18, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > > On 11.07.2015 02:00, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > >> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 01:56AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > >>> Dear Sirs!
> > >> If you're trying to please IPMC gramma-busybodies with this - don't
> > bother:
> > >> they will find a reason why that isn't an appropriate way to address
> > them ;)
> > > I'm more interested in why 1.3.0-rc1 is still in dist/dev. You should
> > > really immediately delete packages that aren't candidates for release,
> > > anything else just creates confusion.
> >
> > Sigh. The SHA1 and MD5 file format is still wrong. Please either look it
> > up if you're faking the format, or use the correct tools to generate it.
> >
> > Specifically, there should be two spaces between the hash and the file
> > name.
> >
> > -- Brane
> >
>

[Atri Sharma]

Out of curiosity, are we only using MD5 and SHA1 for checksums?

If that is the case, can we try CRC? Much easier to port and easier to
compute


On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I think we should just stop using MD5 Hash and just keep using SHA1. In my
> experience, the MD5 format is different on different operating systems,
> while the SHA1 works the same in most of the cases.
>
> D.
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I'll take a look. Thanks, Brane!
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
> > 2015-07-13 11:27 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > On 12.07.2015 08:18, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > > > On 11.07.2015 02:00, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > >> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 01:56AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > > >>> Dear Sirs!
> > > >> If you're trying to please IPMC gramma-busybodies with this - don't
> > > bother:
> > > >> they will find a reason why that isn't an appropriate way to address
> > > them ;)
> > > > I'm more interested in why 1.3.0-rc1 is still in dist/dev. You should
> > > > really immediately delete packages that aren't candidates for
> release,
> > > > anything else just creates confusion.
> > >
> > > Sigh. The SHA1 and MD5 file format is still wrong. Please either look
> it
> > > up if you're faking the format, or use the correct tools to generate
> it.
> > >
> > > Specifically, there should be two spaces between the hash and the file
> > > name.
> > >
> > > -- Brane
> > >
> >
>

--
Regards,

Atri
*l'apprenant*

[Nikolay Tikhonov]

+1

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Out of curiosity, are we only using MD5 and SHA1 for checksums?
>
> If that is the case, can we try CRC? Much easier to port and easier to
> compute
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I think we should just stop using MD5 Hash and just keep using SHA1. In
> my
> > experience, the MD5 format is different on different operating systems,
> > while the SHA1 works the same in most of the cases.
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'll take a look. Thanks, Brane!
> > >
> > > --Yakov
> > >
> > > 2015-07-13 11:27 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > On 12.07.2015 08:18, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > > > > On 11.07.2015 02:00, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > > >> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 01:56AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > > > >>> Dear Sirs!
> > > > >> If you're trying to please IPMC gramma-busybodies with this -
> don't
> > > > bother:
> > > > >> they will find a reason why that isn't an appropriate way to
> address
> > > > them ;)
> > > > > I'm more interested in why 1.3.0-rc1 is still in dist/dev. You
> should
> > > > > really immediately delete packages that aren't candidates for
> > release,
> > > > > anything else just creates confusion.
> > > >
> > > > Sigh. The SHA1 and MD5 file format is still wrong. Please either look
> > it
> > > > up if you're faking the format, or use the correct tools to generate
> > it.
> > > >
> > > > Specifically, there should be two spaces between the hash and the
> file
> > > > name.
> > > >
> > > > -- Brane
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Atri
> *l'apprenant*
>

[Ira Vasilinets]

+1

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Nikolay Tikhonov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> +1
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Out of curiosity, are we only using MD5 and SHA1 for checksums?
> >
> > If that is the case, can we try CRC? Much easier to port and easier to
> > compute
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I think we should just stop using MD5 Hash and just keep using SHA1. In
> > my
> > > experience, the MD5 format is different on different operating systems,
> > > while the SHA1 works the same in most of the cases.
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'll take a look. Thanks, Brane!
> > > >
> > > > --Yakov
> > > >
> > > > 2015-07-13 11:27 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > On 12.07.2015 08:18, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > > > > > On 11.07.2015 02:00, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > > > >> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 01:56AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > > > > >>> Dear Sirs!
> > > > > >> If you're trying to please IPMC gramma-busybodies with this -
> > don't
> > > > > bother:
> > > > > >> they will find a reason why that isn't an appropriate way to
> > address
> > > > > them ;)
> > > > > > I'm more interested in why 1.3.0-rc1 is still in dist/dev. You
> > should
> > > > > > really immediately delete packages that aren't candidates for
> > > release,
> > > > > > anything else just creates confusion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sigh. The SHA1 and MD5 file format is still wrong. Please either
> look
> > > it
> > > > > up if you're faking the format, or use the correct tools to
> generate
> > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Specifically, there should be two spaces between the hash and the
> > file
> > > > > name.
> > > > >
> > > > > -- Brane
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Atri
> > *l'apprenant*
> >
>

[Atri Sharma]

Umm, is this +1 for the release or for the CRC? :)

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Ira Vasilinets <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> +1
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Nikolay Tikhonov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Out of curiosity, are we only using MD5 and SHA1 for checksums?
> > >
> > > If that is the case, can we try CRC? Much easier to port and easier to
> > > compute
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think we should just stop using MD5 Hash and just keep using SHA1.
> In
> > > my
> > > > experience, the MD5 format is different on different operating
> systems,
> > > > while the SHA1 works the same in most of the cases.
> > > >
> > > > D.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'll take a look. Thanks, Brane!
> > > > >
> > > > > --Yakov
> > > > >
> > > > > 2015-07-13 11:27 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 12.07.2015 08:18, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > > > > > > On 11.07.2015 02:00, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 01:56AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > > > > > >>> Dear Sirs!
> > > > > > >> If you're trying to please IPMC gramma-busybodies with this -
> > > don't
> > > > > > bother:
> > > > > > >> they will find a reason why that isn't an appropriate way to
> > > address
> > > > > > them ;)
> > > > > > > I'm more interested in why 1.3.0-rc1 is still in dist/dev. You
> > > should
> > > > > > > really immediately delete packages that aren't candidates for
> > > > release,
> > > > > > > anything else just creates confusion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sigh. The SHA1 and MD5 file format is still wrong. Please either
> > look
> > > > it
> > > > > > up if you're faking the format, or use the correct tools to
> > generate
> > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Specifically, there should be two spaces between the hash and the
> > > file
> > > > > > name.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -- Brane
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Atri
> > > *l'apprenant*
> > >
> >
>

--
Regards,

Atri
*l'apprenant*

[Konstantin Boudnik-2]

Sha1 file format is also wrong again. It's very frustrating to keep asking to fix it for last 6 months. I'm abstaining from the vote

-0 [binding]

Cos


On July 13, 2015 7:31:23 AM PDT, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> wrote:

>I think we should just stop using MD5 Hash and just keep using SHA1. In
>my
>experience, the MD5 format is different on different operating systems,
>while the SHA1 works the same in most of the cases.
>
>D.
>
>On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
>wrote:
>
>> I'll take a look. Thanks, Brane!
>>
>> --Yakov
>>
>> 2015-07-13 11:27 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> > On 12.07.2015 08:18, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> > > On 11.07.2015 02:00, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>> > >> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 01:56AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
>> > >>> Dear Sirs!
>> > >> If you're trying to please IPMC gramma-busybodies with this -
>don't
>> > bother:
>> > >> they will find a reason why that isn't an appropriate way to
>address
>> > them ;)
>> > > I'm more interested in why 1.3.0-rc1 is still in dist/dev. You
>should
>> > > really immediately delete packages that aren't candidates for
>release,
>> > > anything else just creates confusion.
>> >
>> > Sigh. The SHA1 and MD5 file format is still wrong. Please either
>look it
>> > up if you're faking the format, or use the correct tools to
>generate it.
>> >
>> > Specifically, there should be two spaces between the hash and the
>file
>> > name.
>> >
>> > -- Brane
>> >
>>

[dsetrakyan]

Can we get to the bottom of it? Anton, can you please describe which SHA1
command we are using and which command we should be using? (Again, I think
we should stop doing the MD5 hash checksum).

D.

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sha1 file format is also wrong again. It's very frustrating to keep asking
> to fix it for last 6 months. I'm abstaining from the vote
>
> -0 [binding]
>
> Cos
>
>
> On July 13, 2015 7:31:23 AM PDT, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >I think we should just stop using MD5 Hash and just keep using SHA1. In
> >my
> >experience, the MD5 format is different on different operating systems,
> >while the SHA1 works the same in most of the cases.
> >
> >D.
> >
> >On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> I'll take a look. Thanks, Brane!
> >>
> >> --Yakov
> >>
> >> 2015-07-13 11:27 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:
> >>
> >> > On 12.07.2015 08:18, Branko Čibej wrote:
> >> > > On 11.07.2015 02:00, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> >> > >> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 01:56AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> >> > >>> Dear Sirs!
> >> > >> If you're trying to please IPMC gramma-busybodies with this -
> >don't
> >> > bother:
> >> > >> they will find a reason why that isn't an appropriate way to
> >address
> >> > them ;)
> >> > > I'm more interested in why 1.3.0-rc1 is still in dist/dev. You
> >should
> >> > > really immediately delete packages that aren't candidates for
> >release,
> >> > > anything else just creates confusion.
> >> >
> >> > Sigh. The SHA1 and MD5 file format is still wrong. Please either
> >look it
> >> > up if you're faking the format, or use the correct tools to
> >generate it.
> >> >
> >> > Specifically, there should be two spaces between the hash and the
> >file
> >> > name.
> >> >
> >> > -- Brane
> >> >
> >>
>

[Branko Čibej]

On 13.07.2015 16:42, Atri Sharma wrote:
> Out of curiosity, are we only using MD5 and SHA1 for checksums?
>
> If that is the case, can we try CRC? Much easier to port and easier to
> compute

That is complete nonsense.

The point of hashes is to maintain a minimal level of confidence that
the sources downloaded from a mirror match the hashes published on our
web site. Ease of computation has absolutely no bearing on this.

These days, SHA1 is the pretty much the barest acceptable minimum;
people are beginning to use SHA256 and even SHA512 because SHA1
vulnerabilities make it too easy to crack.

MD5 is obsolete for this purpose. CRC is not even close, since it's not
a cryptographic hash.

-- Brane

[Branko Čibej]

On 13.07.2015 18:39, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> Sha1 file format is also wrong again. It's very frustrating to keep asking to fix it for last 6 months. I'm abstaining from the vote
>
> -0 [binding]

Cos, whilst I agree that it's painful to have to repeat the same nitpick
over and over again (and I find it inconceivable that competent
developers can't figure out the sha1sum and md5sum commands, even on
Windows), I really can't agree that the issue is important enough to
abstain from a vote.

Please consider reconsidering. :)

-- Brane

>
> Cos
>
>
> On July 13, 2015 7:31:23 AM PDT, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I think we should just stop using MD5 Hash and just keep using SHA1. In
>> my
>> experience, the MD5 format is different on different operating systems,
>> while the SHA1 works the same in most of the cases.
>>
>> D.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll take a look. Thanks, Brane!
>>>
>>> --Yakov
>>>
>>> 2015-07-13 11:27 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>> On 12.07.2015 08:18, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>>>> On 11.07.2015 02:00, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 01:56AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Sirs!
>>>>>> If you're trying to please IPMC gramma-busybodies with this -
>> don't
>>>> bother:
>>>>>> they will find a reason why that isn't an appropriate way to
>> address
>>>> them ;)
>>>>> I'm more interested in why 1.3.0-rc1 is still in dist/dev. You
>> should
>>>>> really immediately delete packages that aren't candidates for
>> release,
>>>>> anything else just creates confusion.
>>>> Sigh. The SHA1 and MD5 file format is still wrong. Please either
>> look it
>>>> up if you're faking the format, or use the correct tools to
>> generate it.
>>>> Specifically, there should be two spaces between the hash and the
>> file
>>>> name.
>>>>
>>>> -- Brane
>>>>

[Atri Sharma]

Thanks Brane.

Like I said, I merely suggested CRC since my understanding is that CRC is
more suited for when we want to detect random errors and maintain sanity of
the data. However,  I did not know that we also needed a security aspect to
the hashing mechanism. If we are also looking at malicious interventions
detection, I agree that SHA is needed.


My only point was that since CRC is a light algorithm, if it suits our
needs, may be easy to do and port. If I was mistaken, I apologize.
On 13 Jul 2015 23:16, "Branko Čibej" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 13.07.2015 16:42, Atri Sharma wrote:
> > Out of curiosity, are we only using MD5 and SHA1 for checksums?
> >
> > If that is the case, can we try CRC? Much easier to port and easier to
> > compute
>
> That is complete nonsense.
>
> The point of hashes is to maintain a minimal level of confidence that
> the sources downloaded from a mirror match the hashes published on our
> web site. Ease of computation has absolutely no bearing on this.
>
> These days, SHA1 is the pretty much the barest acceptable minimum;
> people are beginning to use SHA256 and even SHA512 because SHA1
> vulnerabilities make it too easy to crack.
>
> MD5 is obsolete for this purpose. CRC is not even close, since it's not
> a cryptographic hash.
>
> -- Brane
>
>

[Semyon Boikov]

+1

On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear Sirs!
>
> We have uploaded release candidate to
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/ignite/1.3.0-rc2/
>
> Tag name is
> ignite-1.3.0-incubating-rc2
>
> 1.3.0 changes:
> * Added auto-retries for cache operations in recoverable cases.
> * Added integration with Apache YARN.
> * Fixed several issues with JTA integration.
> * Fixed several issues with Hibernate L2 cache.
> * Stability fixes for TCP discovery SPI.
> * Stability fixes for onheap and offheap SQL queries.
> * Bug fixes in In-Memory Accelerator For Apache Hadoop.
> * Many stability and fault-tolerance fixes.
>
> DEVNOTES
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ignite.git;a=blob_plain;f=DEVNOTES.txt;hb=refs/tags/ignite-1.3.0-incubating-rc2
>
> RELEASENOTES
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ignite.git;a=blob_plain;f=RELEASE_NOTES.txt;hb=refs/tags/ignite-1.3.0-incubating-rc2
>
> Please start voting.
>
> +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.3.0
> 0 - don't care either way
> -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.3.0 (explain why)
>
> This vote will go for 72 hours.
>
> --Yakov
>

[Alexey Kuznetsov-2]

+1

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Semyon Boikov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Sirs!
> >
> > We have uploaded release candidate to
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/ignite/1.3.0-rc2/
> >
> > Tag name is
> > ignite-1.3.0-incubating-rc2
> >
> > 1.3.0 changes:
> > * Added auto-retries for cache operations in recoverable cases.
> > * Added integration with Apache YARN.
> > * Fixed several issues with JTA integration.
> > * Fixed several issues with Hibernate L2 cache.
> > * Stability fixes for TCP discovery SPI.
> > * Stability fixes for onheap and offheap SQL queries.
> > * Bug fixes in In-Memory Accelerator For Apache Hadoop.
> > * Many stability and fault-tolerance fixes.
> >
> > DEVNOTES
> >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ignite.git;a=blob_plain;f=DEVNOTES.txt;hb=refs/tags/ignite-1.3.0-incubating-rc2
> >
> > RELEASENOTES
> >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ignite.git;a=blob_plain;f=RELEASE_NOTES.txt;hb=refs/tags/ignite-1.3.0-incubating-rc2
> >
> > Please start voting.
> >
> > +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.3.0
> > 0 - don't care either way
> > -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.3.0 (explain why)
> >
> > This vote will go for 72 hours.
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
>

--
Alexey Kuznetsov
GridGain Systems
www.gridgain.com