hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Hsieh <...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download
Date Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:36:39 GMT
Sounds good.  I'll mark them 0.90.7 when I commit, but someone else will
have to change to 0.90.6 if an rc4 is needed.

Jon.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan <
ramkrishna.vasudevan@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi Jon
>
> Yes Jon I am fine with it.  If I get +1 on this RC then I will release the
> RC3 as the final version.  If I don't get then I will take another RC with
> your changes.
>
> Thanks Jon.  Have a joyful vacation. (smile)
>
> Regards
> Ram
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Hsieh [mailto:jon@cloudera.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 6:01 PM
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download
>
> Ram,
>
> Sounds perfect.
>
> You've asked to freeze the 0.90 branch.  Is it cool if I commit two
> rat/license related patches onto the 0.90 branch later today?  (I'm going
> to be away from computer for a few weeks -- long needed vacation).
>
> Jon.
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan <
> ramkrishna.vasudevan@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > only.
> > 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.
> >
> > Regards
> > Ram
> >
> > -----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
> > well)
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5377
> >
> > Also, the license fixes for 0.92/trunk were fairly trivial and I'll give
> > Elliot credit for them on that patch:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364
> >
> > Jon.
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // jon@cloudera.com
>
>


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

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