hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stack <st...@duboce.net>
Subject Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download
Date Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:45:40 GMT
Ram:

I'd say go ahead and roll a new RC.

I tried to convince Jon that this RC was no worse that previous
releases off this branch and that we could fix the licensing issue in
the next point release but he is not having it.

While its true we could outvote him, as the rules allow, in general I
think it healthier all around if there are no votes against a release
when it goes out.  Its tough enough finding volunteers to spend some
time evaluating candidates as it is; if someone has taken the time to
play with the release as its plain Jon has then I'd say lets respect
their opinion.

Good on you Ram,
St.Ack

P.S. Let me sign the artifacts before you announce the next candidate;
I'll download them and play with them to evaluate them and if
basically good, will do the signing.



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
>

Mime
View raw message