incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Taylor <jamestay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 2.2.3 incubating
Date Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:43:35 GMT
Thanks so much, David for the review and words of encouragement. Don't
worry, we won't get discouraged - we just want to get this right.

See below for more questions/comments.

Regards,
James

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:26 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:37 PM, James Taylor <jamestaylor@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > This is a call for a vote on Apache Phoenix 2.2.3 incubating. Phoenix is
> a
> > SQL query engine for Apache HBase, a NoSQL data store.  It is accessed
> as a
> > JDBC driver and enables querying and managing HBase tables using SQL.
> This
> > will be our first release in the incubator.
> >
> > The RC is available for download at
> > http://people.apache.org/~jamestaylor/phoenix-2.2.3-incubating-RC3/ and
> is
> > signed with my code signing key 5F5F3233. The source code may be found in
> >
> http://people.apache.org/~jamestaylor/phoenix-2.2.3-incubating-RC3/phoenix-2.2.3-incubating-src.tar.gzwhile
> > a convenience, pre-built binary may be found in
> >
> http://people.apache.org/~jamestaylor/phoenix-2.2.3-incubating-RC3/phoenix-2.2.3-incubating.tar.gz
> > .
> >
> > GIT source tag:
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=log;h=refs/tags/v2.2.3
> > GIT commit:
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=commit;h=5e7d071693b6ad4adb758b94d53808a75feeae26
> >
>
> Hi James:
>
> Nice to see phoenix working on a release so rapidly.
> This vote is missing a lot of information that makes it much harder to
> work with.
> Has your dev list seen this vote? If so a link to the [RESULT] of that
> vote would be nice. If not, why not? (I couldn't find an RC3 vote in
> my hasty look at your archives)
>

A vote was held on developer mailing list  for the previous release
candidate, RC2, and it passed with 4 +1's, and no -1's or +0's (2 votes
were from IPMC members). The thread is here:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201402.mbox/%3CCAAF1JdjsiHGFYQjkMVSWJmGaRJQd0fJJRVAB7J70-i2tLR2UkA%40mail.gmail.com%3E

This release candidate, RC3, has one additional bug fix and a separate
source-only tar ball. I proposed on our dev list not to hold a new vote,
but rather start a vote on the general list instead, since the changes were
minimal and no one objected.

Is that ok?

 How many binding IPMC votes did you get on your dev list vote? (If you
> have enough binding votes, I might not expend the time, while if you
> are lacking votes I might be willing to invest the time to help)
> The RC2 vote email was a bit better in the last two regards.
> Please put the RC# in the subject - this was threaded in my mail
> client under an RC2 mail.
>

I'll make sure to include the RC# in the subject next time.


>
> Where is your KEYS file? (does phoenix have a space on dist.a.o?) Even
> having your key in your LDAP profile would be ok, but you don't link
> to the key, which is extra work. You'll need a KEYS file when you
> publish anyway.
>

I will generate the KEYS file and include in the same directory. We'll put
our next release/release candidate in dist.a.o, as that seems the norm.


>
> The NOTICE and LICENSE files are problematic. NOTICE in the source
> tarball contains notices for software that simply doesn't exist in the
> source tarball. And LICENSE in the convenience binary seems to be
> missing licenses for software that is included.
> Have a look here:
> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice for more
> details.
>

The NOTICE file of our source-only distribution matches the one from our
binary distribution which is a mistake. Our source-only distribution does
not include source from any other projects. Does that mean we don't need a
NOTICE file for our source-only distribution?

For our binary distribution, we'll make another pass through our indirect
dependencies and update the NOTICE and LICENSE as needed.

Should we roll a new RC and start a new thread after these changes?

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