hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Arun C Murthy <...@yahoo-inc.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release candidate 0.20.203.0-rc0
Date Mon, 02 May 2011 21:33:20 GMT

On May 2, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:

> On 05/02/2011 02:05 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>> As I noted before you were the first one to propose this release off
>> Yahoo security patch-set in April, 2010:
>> http://s.apache.org/5Gv
>>
>> What has changed since? Clearly, the same situation exists today.
>
> I have absolutely no objection in principle to an Apache 0.20 release
> including security.  I object to the fact that this patchset started
> from an arbitrary point and unilaterally applied a large set of  
> patches
> that are not well correlated with Jira, trunk or other 0.20 branches.

Completely untrue.

This patchset started from 0.20.1 has is complete superset of 0.20.1.

We will work towards ensuring it is a complete superset of the last  
stable release: 0.20.2.

>
>> Also, please note that of the ~450 commits in the branch, only 30 odd
>> jiras are yet to be committed to trunk:
>> http://s.apache.org/7Pe. So it's incorrect to state 'lack of  
>> community
>> involvement'.
>
> This should be easily discoverable from Jira: issues should use the
> "fix-for" field to indicate which branches they've been merged to.   
> This
> standard practice has not been observed for over 400 patches  
> included in
> this release candidate.
>

This seems like parliamentary stalling procedures... sure they don't  
have 'fix-for' fields but they've been verified to be true from  
external committers:

http://s.apache.org/yX

Are you simply asking for someone to go through the 450 odd jiras and  
set 'fix-for' fields?

>> Assuming the technical inconsistencies are sorted out, are you  
>> willing
>> to withdraw you objection?
>
> These are not just technical concerns.  How I vote on any future  
> release
> candidate will in part depend on how the community is involved in its
> production.
>

I understand they aren't technical concerns.

I asked if you were willing to withdraw your objection if the  
technical concerns are satisfied. I think you answered my question -  
you will not withdraw your objection even if it's a technical issue.

thanks,
Arun


Mime
View raw message