hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nigel Daley <nda...@mac.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release candidate 0.20.203.0-rc1
Date Thu, 05 May 2011 04:17:04 GMT
I'm really not sure yet how to vote here.  I was going to vote +1 for what I was told by a
number of Yahoo! committers would be a one time release as Yahoo! "comes back to Apache" after
a hiatus last fall/winter and ended their own distribution.  Clearly this code was not all
developed as a community process, but I was going to support a one time release of what they
had developed in exclusion.

Then I read Roy's email, which confused me.  We would he or I or anyone else support this
release setting precedent or policy since it would walk all over our bylaws, community process,
and the consensus nature of our foundation?  This release vote is a lazy majority of the PMC,
but other decisions rolled up in this are supposed to be lazy majority of active committers
or, in the case of code changes, a lazy consensus.  Setting policy by this release means any
sufficiently large group of committers could go off and develop on their own and then commit
it to a branch and call a release.

Furthermore, it now sounds like this is possibly the first in a line of feature releases off
this branch.  Bug fixes releases, sure.  But feature releases?  What's wrong with trunk?

Nige

On May 4, 2011, at 6:56 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On May 4, 2011, at 5:39 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
> 
>> The point is that these discussion should be sorted out, ie you don't
>> change your development and release model on a release VOTE thread,
>> you change it on a DISCUSSION thread.
> 
> That is no different than saying you have a right to veto a
> release until the issue is addressed, which you don't have.
> 
> A release vote is a majority decision.  If the majority
> decides to release, then whatever gets released will define
> the new norm by which policies are assumed.  If not released,
> then I suggest collaborating more on the policies before
> trying to vote again.
> 
> Either way, we don't hold up a vote for the sake of a
> policy discussion because voting is a more efficient
> means of discovering if the policy really matters.
> 
> ....Roy
> 


Mime
View raw message