bigtop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] BOM for Bigtop 0.4.0
Date Tue, 22 May 2012 17:20:58 GMT
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?

Thanks,
Roman.

Mime
View raw message