accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Date Fri, 07 Jun 2013 16:05:42 GMT
The vote has closed. The final results, as I see them, are:

PMC (+6, -4)
+1: Christopher Tubbs, Keith Turner, William Slacum, Dave Marion (with
reservations), Eric Newton, Jason Trost
-1: Adam Fuchs, John Vines, Josh Elser, David Medinets

Other (+1, -3)
+1: German Gutierrez
-1: Sean Busbey, Mike Drob, David Lyle

If we count all votes, it's a tie. And if we only count PMC, it's
still pretty split, especially considering Dave Marion's +1 came with
reservations. Either way, I'm thinking there isn't enough consensus
(not for me to be comfortable commit the change). So, in the interests
of moving forward and playing cautiously, I think we can table this
and postpone it for the 1.6.0 development cycle. We can revisit this
at the beginning of the 1.7.0 development cycle.

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That would have also been my assumption since it was not otherwise stated.
>> However, given the nature of this vote, I believe non-binding votes should
>> also be carefully considered.
>>
>>
>> On 6/6/13 10:22 AM, Billie Rinaldi wrote:
>>>
>>> I would assume all our votes are "community welcome to vote, only
>>> committers binding."
>>>
>>> Billie
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:52 AM, David Medinets
>>> <david.medinets@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Who is voting - the accumulo community, the PMC members, or some other
>>>> subset of people?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:51 PM, David Lyle <dlyle65535@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> -1 Prefer to stay on java 1.6 until pulled by features or eol.
>>>>>
>>>>> -D...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:53 PM, German Gutierrez
>>>>> <gutierrezga00@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I vote for in favor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> German A. Gutierrez
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
>>>>>>> dependency to >=1.7.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout
the
>>>>>>> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what
the
>>>>>>> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's
a
>>>>>>> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel
free
>>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration
of
>>>>>>> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
>>>>>>> to come to a concrete opinion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big
deal
>>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> me. I just want a concrete resolution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>>>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vines@apache.org>
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> authentication
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications
on
>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Accumulo implementation as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <ben@sqrrl.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled
code.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Sean
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>

Mime
View raw message