accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] 1.5.1-RC2
Date Thu, 20 Feb 2014 00:45:28 GMT
RC2 fails with the following votes

+1: 2
+0: 1
-1: 3

The -1's were all due to the content of the CHANGES file. I believe 
Christopher would change his vote to +1 given the details he provided, 
but since there are two other -1's, it's a moot point.

The next RC will not be made until consensus is reached on the subject 
(email thread is "[DISCUSS] CHANGES Documents").

On 2/15/14, 4:17 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
> Alright, given the snow, holiday, and the lack of bylaws stating that I
> cannot do this:
>
> I'm extending the VOTE on 1.5.1-RC2 until 02/19/2014 1900 EST (this
> extends the original duration to a week for those keeping track). This
> is expected to provide an additional two full work days for people to
> inspect the release.
>
> Let's get some good feedback before then, folks.
>
> - Josh
>
> On 2/15/14, 6:29 PM, Christopher wrote:
>> Either way works for me.
>>
>> I was just suggesting a more formal approach in the absence of bylaws
>> that explicitly permit extensions. The general concern, I suppose, is
>> that vote extensions could be used to manipulate to a desired outcome
>> in a majority approval scheme... so having the vote conditions fixed
>> at the time it is announced prevents that. I don't think that's a
>> serious concern, though... especially since we all have the same goal
>> of producing a quality release, and preventing one that falls short of
>> that.
>>
>> With the bylaws in place, things are simpler, because we'd have
>> already agreed on those bylaws, and wouldn't need to do anything
>> silly, like vote on whether to allow a vote extension in the first
>> place (which would get obnoxious).
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Billie Rinaldi
>> <billie.rinaldi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A somewhat more formal way of "extending" the vote would be to simply
>>>> retract/cancel this vote (or let it lapse with no votes), and just
>>>> re-issue another vote with identical artifacts at a more opportune
>>>> time. I point this out for two reasons:
>>>>
>>>> 1) I don't want to undermine Josh's work to create this release
>>>> candidate. He shouldn't have to do that again if nothing has changed
>>>> and we just need more time to review. And,
>>>>
>>>> 2) The vote was called with a 72hr. notice, and changing that after
>>>> the fact is probably a bit questionable. We can achieve the same
>>>> effect without modifying the characteristics of the vote, by simply
>>>> calling a new vote, identical to this one, later.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that extending the vote is questionable.  I think it
>>> would be
>>> fine if Josh just said the vote deadline is extended to X (perhaps an
>>> additional 72 hours, or maybe event one week from the original post
>>> since
>>> many people have Monday off).  Some Apache projects explicitly
>>> mention that
>>> votes may be extended in their bylaws [1], so that's something we could
>>> consider when we write ours.
>>>
>>> But if people would feel more comfortable if Josh reposted the vote, I'm
>>> sure he could do that.  :-)
>>>
>>> [1]: https://hc.apache.org/bylaws.html
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> More time would be great. I'll still try to finish up some testing by
>>>>> tomorrow, but I can't make any guarantees.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> If people want some extra time given the impact of snow, please
>>>>>> inform.
>>>> I'm
>>>>>> ok with extending this a few days if it means people will give it
>>>>>> more
>>>> love.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/12/14, 6:50 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please consider the following candidate as Apache Accumulo 1.5.1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Git artifacts: The staging repository was built from the branch
>>>>>>> "1.5.1-rc2" (c810f51b). No accompanying git tag was created yet
>>>>>>> (as it
>>>>>>> would be the same exact thing as providing the above SHA1).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maven Staged Repo:
>>>>>>>
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1001
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Source tarball:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> http://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1001/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.5.1/accumulo-1.5.1-src.tar.gz
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Binary tarball:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> http://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1001/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.5.1/accumulo-1.5.1-bin.tar.gz
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Changes since 1.5.1-RC1: ACCUMULO-1908, ACCUMULO-1935,
>>>>>>> ACCUMULO-2299,
>>>>>>> ACCUMULO-2329, ACCUMULO-2331, ACCUMULO-2332, ACCUMULO-2334,
>>>>>>> ACCUMULO-2337, ACCUMULO-2342, ACCUMULO-2344, ACCUMULO-2356,
>>>> ACCUMULO-2360
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Changes since 1.5.0:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=accumulo.git;a=commitdiff;h=d277321d176b71753d391f896f09dc9785173cb0
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Keys: http://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Testing:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Manual testing and verification of fixes since RC1 and 12hr CI
with
>>>>>>> verification performed. All previously mentioned testing done
for
>>>>>>> RC1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This vote will be open for the next 72 hours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Upon successful completion of this vote, a 1.5.1 gpg-signed Git
tag
>>>> will
>>>>>>> be created from c810f51b and the above staging repository will
be
>>>>>>> promoted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>

Mime
View raw message