Breaking 1.5.0 and 1.5.1 out seems like a seperate issue from adding 1.4.0->1.5.0 changes. Adding 1.4.0->1.5.0 changes seems like a useful thing to communicate, but it was not in 1.5.0. I am not sure it should hold up 1.5.1. Maybe something to consider for 1.6.0 or 1.7.0?
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:28 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > I prefer per minor release breakout of changes. Such that, the Changes file > should have one block for 1.5.0->1.5.1 changes (for those who are upgrading > from 1.5.0), but also the 1.4.0->1.5.0 changes (for those moving from 1.4.x > to 1.5.1). > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I went back and looked at our release governance page[1] and it does > > explicitly state that votes will be 72 hours. So I was out of line when > > asking you to extend it and I'm not sure that the extension is valid at > > this point anyway. Lack of bylaws makes this a messy process. > > > > In light of this I am changing my vote from +1 to +0, since I did not > vote > > in the original time frame. > > > > [1]: http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html#releasing > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Alright, given the snow, holiday, and the lack of bylaws stating that I > > > cannot do this: > > > > > > I'm extending the VOTE on 1.5.1-RC2 until 02/19/2014 1900 EST (this > > > extends the original duration to a week for those keeping track). This > is > > > expected to provide an additional two full work days for people to > > inspect > > > the release. > > > > > > Let's get some good feedback before then, folks. > > > > > > - Josh > > > > > > > > > On 2/15/14, 6:29 PM, Christopher wrote: > > > > > >> Either way works for me. > > >> > > >> I was just suggesting a more formal approach in the absence of bylaws > > >> that explicitly permit extensions. The general concern, I suppose, is > > >> that vote extensions could be used to manipulate to a desired outcome > > >> in a majority approval scheme... so having the vote conditions fixed > > >> at the time it is announced prevents that. I don't think that's a > > >> serious concern, though... especially since we all have the same goal > > >> of producing a quality release, and preventing one that falls short of > > >> that. > > >> > > >> With the bylaws in place, things are simpler, because we'd have > > >> already agreed on those bylaws, and wouldn't need to do anything > > >> silly, like vote on whether to allow a vote extension in the first > > >> place (which would get obnoxious). > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Christopher L Tubbs II > > >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Billie Rinaldi > > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> A somewhat more formal way of "extending" the vote would be to > simply > > >>>> retract/cancel this vote (or let it lapse with no votes), and just > > >>>> re-issue another vote with identical artifacts at a more opportune > > >>>> time. I point this out for two reasons: > > >>>> > > >>>> 1) I don't want to undermine Josh's work to create this release > > >>>> candidate. He shouldn't have to do that again if nothing has changed > > >>>> and we just need more time to review. And, > > >>>> > > >>>> 2) The vote was called with a 72hr. notice, and changing that after > > >>>> the fact is probably a bit questionable. We can achieve the same > > >>>> effect without modifying the characteristics of the vote, by simply > > >>>> calling a new vote, identical to this one, later. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> I'm not sure that extending the vote is questionable. I think it > would > > >>> be > > >>> fine if Josh just said the vote deadline is extended to X (perhaps an > > >>> additional 72 hours, or maybe event one week from the original post > > since > > >>> many people have Monday off). Some Apache projects explicitly > mention > > >>> that > > >>> votes may be extended in their bylaws [1], so that's something we > could > > >>> consider when we write ours. > > >>> > > >>> But if people would feel more comfortable if Josh reposted the vote, > > I'm > > >>> sure he could do that. :-) > > >>> > > >>> [1]: https://hc.apache.org/bylaws.html > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Christopher L Tubbs II > > >>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> More time would be great. I'll still try to finish up some testing > by > > >>>>> tomorrow, but I can't make any guarantees. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -- > > >>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II > > >>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected] > > > > >>>>> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> If people want some extra time given the impact of snow, please > > inform. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> I'm > > >>>> > > >>>>> ok with extending this a few days if it means people will give it > > more > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> love. > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On 2/12/14, 6:50 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> All, > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Please consider the following candidate as Apache Accumulo 1.5.1 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Git artifacts: The staging repository was built from the branch > > >>>>>>> "1.5.1-rc2" (c810f51b). No accompanying git tag was created yet > (as > > >>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>> would be the same exact thing as providing the above SHA1). > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Maven Staged Repo: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ > > >>>> orgapacheaccumulo-1001 > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>> Source tarball: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> http://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ > > >>>> orgapacheaccumulo-1001/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.5. > > >>>> 1/accumulo-1.5.1-src.tar.gz > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Binary tarball: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> http://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ > > >>>> orgapacheaccumulo-1001/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.5. > > >>>> 1/accumulo-1.5.1-bin.tar.gz > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Changes since 1.5.1-RC1: ACCUMULO-1908, ACCUMULO-1935, > > ACCUMULO-2299, > > >>>>>>> ACCUMULO-2329, ACCUMULO-2331, ACCUMULO-2332, ACCUMULO-2334, > > >>>>>>> ACCUMULO-2337, ACCUMULO-2342, ACCUMULO-2344, ACCUMULO-2356, > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> ACCUMULO-2360 > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>> Changes since 1.5.0: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=accumulo.git;a= > > >>>> commitdiff;h=d277321d176b71753d391f896f09dc9785173cb0 > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Keys: http://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Testing: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Manual testing and verification of fixes since RC1 and 12hr CI > with > > >>>>>>> verification performed. All previously mentioned testing done for > > >>>>>>> RC1. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> This vote will be open for the next 72 hours. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Upon successful completion of this vote, a 1.5.1 gpg-signed Git > tag > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> will > > >>>> > > >>>>> be created from c810f51b and the above staging repository will be > > >>>>>>> promoted. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> - Josh > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>> > > >
