curator-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.6.0
Date Wed, 09 Jul 2014 22:20:20 GMT
Thanks Mike,
So, currently we have:
3 binding +1
1 non binding +1
1 non binding -1

Do any of the binding voters want to change their votes based on Mike's
assessment of the RC?
cheers




On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Cam,
>
> As the person who called the vote, you will need to go through the email
> thread and tally up all the counts. Generally, an ASF project needs
> majority approval from committers to release, that is at least 3 +1s and
> more +1s than -1s. It would be a good idea to verify this against the
> Curator bylaws. If the vote passes, then you release, if the vote does not
> pass then you build a new RC.
>
> My vote is non-binding, which means it doesn't count. I'd petition binding
> voters to -1 for the reasons I enumerated, but the decision is ultimately
> out of my hands.
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > So where does this leave us guys? Presumably the release needs to be
> > rebuilt?
> > cheers
> > Cam
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Jay Zarfoss <zarfide@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Clean build runs fine / all test pass on my Mac.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> > > jordan@jordanzimmerman.com
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please open an issue in Jira for this one. That will touch every
> file.
> > > >
> > > > -JZ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On July 9, 2014 at 10:44:07 AM, Mike Drob (madrob@cloudera.com)
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just noticed another issue - Appendix A needs to be updated in all of
> > the
> > > > LICENCE files. Instead of providing a year and copyright owner, we
> > should
> > > > use placeholder values, like in
> > > > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
> > > >
> > > >    APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work.
> > > >
> > > >       To apply the Apache License to your work, attach the following
> > > >       boilerplate notice, with the fields enclosed by brackets "[]"
> > > >       replaced with your own identifying information. (Don't include
> > > >       the brackets!)  The text should be enclosed in the appropriate
> > > >       comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that a
> > > >       file or class name and description of purpose be included on
> the
> > > >       same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier
> > > >       identification within third-party archives.
> > > >
> > > >    Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > Just expand the header comment match what resides in the pom.xml
> > > >
> > > > Tomcat is a fine reference -
> > > >
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/site/trunk/docs/doap_Tomcat.rdf
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> > > > jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> > > > * I’ve removed the dependency-reduced-pom.xml from the project. That
> > was
> > > a
> > > > mistake.
> > > > * I’ve updated the license plugins to ignore .json and .thrift
> > > >
> > > > doap.rdf
> > > > What’s incomplete?
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't have _any_ licensing information, just a copyright
> > assertion.
> > > > Check out LEGAL-114 and LEGAL-172 for a long history.
> > > > That doap file has been that way for a while. Curator’s doap file
> looks
> > > > just like ZooKeeper’s. Without having to dive into the minutia of
> those
> > > > docs, can you describe what needs to be added? Or, can you point to
> > > another
> > > > project’s DOAP file that is better?
> > > >
> > > > -JZ
> > > >
> > > > On July 9, 2014 at 10:20:56 AM, Mike Drob (madrob@cloudera.com)
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> > > > jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> > > > * curator-x-rpc/dependency-reduced-pom.xml
> > > > This shouldn’t be part of the project
> > > >
> > > > Then it shouldn't be in the source or the release tag. :)
> > > > * curator-x-rpc/src/test/resources/configuration/connections.json
> > > > JSON doesn’t support comments so there’s no way to have license
> > headers.
> > > > When I run “mvn license:check” it comes back clean (with some
> warnings
> > > > about unknown files).
> > > >
> > > > Yea, I'm not sure there's anything to be done for these, which is
> > > > unfortunate.
> > > > doap.rdf
> > > > What’s incomplete?
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't have _any_ licensing information, just a copyright
> > assertion.
> > > > Check out LEGAL-114 and LEGAL-172 for a long history.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On July 9, 2014 at 10:02:40 AM, Mike Drob (madrob@cloudera.com)
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > -1 (non-binding)
> > > >
> > > > Verified signature and hashes, all good.
> > > >
> > > > The git tag does not match the source zip:
> > > > * zip contains a file called .test.swp
> > > > * zip differs from tag on curator-x-rpc/dependency-reduced-pom.xml
> > > (brought
> > > > up in the other thread)
> > > >
> > > > Missing licence headers:
> > > > * curator-x-rpc/pom.xml
> > > > * curator-x-rpc/dependency-reduced-pom.xml
> > > > * curator-x-rpc/src/main/thrift/curator.thrift
> > > > * curator-x-rpc/src/main/resources/curator/help.txt
> > > > * curator-x-rpc/src/test/resources/configuration/connections.json
> > > > * curator-x-rpc/src/test/resources/configuration/logging.json
> > > > * curator-x-rpc/src/test/resources/configuration/simple.json
> > > > * curator-x-rpc/src/test/resources/configuration/test.json
> > > >
> > > > Incomplete licence header:
> > > > * doap.rdf
> > > >
> > > > Attempted to build from source: mvn clean verify
> > > > * Compiled cleanly!
> > > > * Had a test failure in TestDistributedDelayQueue.testSorting()
> (fixed
> > in
> > > > master)
> > > > * Had a intermittent test failure in
> > > > TestDistributedQueue.testCustomExecutor() (will investigate further)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 6:47 AM, Eric Tschetter <echeddar@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wednesday, July 9, 2014, Ashish <paliwalashish@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 (non-binding)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ran the build. Works fine and all test cases passed
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> > > > > > jordan@jordanzimmerman.com <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Validated keys
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On July 8, 2014 at 5:08:37 PM, Cameron McKenzie (
> > > > > mckenzie.cam@gmail.com
> > > > > > <javascript:;>)
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the vote for Apache Curator version 2.6.0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries
are
> > > > > > > provided for convenience.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Link to release
> > > > > > > notes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12327098
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Staging repo:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.6.0/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Binary artifacts:
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1004
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The tag to be voted
> > > > > > > upon:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=apache-curator-2.6.0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign
the
> > > > > > > release:http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [ ] +1 approve
> > > > > > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > > > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > cheers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cam
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > thanks
> > > > > > ashish
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> > > > > > My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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