hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan" <ramkrishna.vasude...@huawei.com>
Subject RE: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download
Date Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:07:34 GMT
Hi Jon

First of all thanks a lot for working on the license issues.  

As discussed with Stack the key signing part he said he can do it.  
Currently for the 0.90.6RC3 only you have voted.  I received 2 +1s on RC2
If you can commit your changes once again we can take another RC for 0.90.6
but it may delay the release further.  
So in another 2 days we get more +1s then we go ahead with this Rc3,  if not
take another RC with your recent JIRAs and release that one.

Does that sound ok ? Good on you Jon.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hsieh [mailto:jon@cloudera.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:54 AM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

Hey Ram,

You are the release manager so you get to decide if on the status of the
0.90.6 release. I believe we have a workaround for the key signing bit.  I
believe the rules say a sufficient condition for a release is to have at
least 3 formal pmc +1's as long as there are more +1's than -1's.  (There
is no veto on releases).

I've created patches that make rat run when you add a -Prelease profile to
the 0.90.x build and also a patch the fixes the licenses making rat pass.
 If these are applied my current -1 vote will turn into a +1.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363 (takes 0.92 and trunk as

Also, the license fixes for 0.92/trunk were fairly trivial and I'll give
Elliot credit for them on that patch:



On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com> wrote:

> I've filed a jira to add rat check to the build
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363
> And to fix the licenses:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364
> I plan on implementing them when I get in to the office today.
> Jon.
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>> > I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I think
>>> of
>>> > have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
>>> > - mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in the
>>> > 0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.
>>> I went through a few.  Looks like its complaining mostly because of
>>> empty files, files it can't read the apache license in (because its
>>> got xml preamble), etc.  I'd say this is important but my guess is
>>> that 0.90.5 wasn't much better.  I'd suggest we could file an issue to
>>> fix this in 0.90.7/0.92.1 but that maybe its not enough to sink the
>>> release?
>> I chatted with some of the apache veterans, and I'm going to stand by the
>> -1 unless the licenses are fixed.  It should be trivial fix.
>>  See this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>> "What files in an Apache release do not require a license header?"
>> That said, release votes are by majority, and there is no veto:
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>> Jon.
>> --
>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
>> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> // jon@cloudera.com
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // jon@cloudera.com

// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

View raw message