accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Billie Rinaldi <billie.rina...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws, vote 2
Date Thu, 03 Apr 2014 22:57:12 GMT
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey+lists@cloudera.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Billie Rinaldi <billie.rinaldi@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> >
> > Going by the standards of a release vote, voting is actually the
> > appropriate time to discover fundamental issues.  That's kind of the
> whole
> > point of voting -- getting people to agree that there are no fundamental
> > issues with what you're voting on.  Finding valid, justifiable issues
> > should be welcome, as it results in a better product, whether the product
> > be a release or a community standard.
> >
> >
> >
> As an aside, this is not encouraged in our current release process.
>
> The test practices for a release take longer than the voting period for an
> RC. This directly implies that the fundamental issues must have been worked
> out prior to a call to vote.
>

Our disagreement here might largely be due to differing definitions of
"fundamental issues."  Also, I think you might be blocking out what
happened between the first 1.5.0 release candidate and the last?  =)


>
> I've been fine with this interpretation, largely because it lines up with
> Apache guidelines around votes: do the consensus building work up front. If
> we're going to use a release vote as a time to do primary vetting, then we
> should probably change our RC vote window.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message