bigtop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruno Mahé <bm...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] BOM for Bigtop 0.4.0
Date Wed, 23 May 2012 22:49:54 GMT
On 05/23/2012 11:32 AM, Alan Gates wrote:
> 
> On May 22, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Alan Gates <gates@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>> I don't know what the rules are for a BOM vote.
>>> It seems close to a release vote, which would indicate a -1 is not a veto (ie
it's a majority vote).
>>>
>>> However, continuing down this path we'll end up with a -1 from Owen when it comes
time to release 0.4.
>>> Releases are majority votes, but the rest of the IPMC is going to take a long
hard look if you have a -1
>>> from one of your mentors.  I think it's in everyone's interest to work this out
now rather than ignore his -1
>>> only to bump into it again when it's time to release.  I realize you feel his
-1 is unjustified.  But simply
>>> declaring it to be so and moving on will not make the issue go away.
>>
>> Alan, I think what we're asking our mentors here is whether it would
>> be ok for us to
>> decouple and issue of releasing convenience binary artifacts from the
>> rest of the
>> discussion. IOW, suppose that this vote ONLY applies to the source releases
>> of Bigtop (no binary artifacts involved whatsoever), we're asking Owen
>> whether he
>> would have the same concerns. If he does -- we would like to hear them
>> articulated.
>>
>> That way, Bigtop community can move on working on the *source* of the
>> Bigtop 0.4.0
>> release and mentors/incubator leadership/ASF board can spend time figuring out
>> an ASF-wide policy for the binary convenience artifacts.
>>
>> Does that makes sense?
> I do not fully understand Owen's concerns and wouldn't presume to speak for him.  But
in thinking about this one concern I have is the following.  The community votes on and reviews
only source releases.  I have no problem with Bigtop including source code that packages non-Apache
owned code.  But the community does not vote on or approve binary distributions.  These are
made at the discretion of the release manager.  I do have concerns with Bigtop distributing
non-Apache owned artifacts, as I have indicated in previous emails.  But after I vote for
the source release, I have no ability to vote against the binary distribution. So I am forced
to vote against the source release to prevent what I think is a bad binary distribution policy.
 So I don't find it convincing to say this is only about the source release and not about
the binary distributions until we resolve the question of whether or not Bigtop will be doing
binary distributions of non-Apache owned software.
> 
> Alan.
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
> 

I would recommend to chime in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-605 so the source release
and binary convenience artefacts can be decoupled in the discussion.


Thanks,
Bruno

Mime
View raw message