On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was reading that as "1.4.0->1.5.0" and "1.5.0 changes" were the same > Oh right. I was thinking about the 1.4.0 release notes that were manually generated. I thought these were informative, but I suppose that was done because we did not have the information in jira. If the issues in jira are properly marked (as feature, improvement, bug) and have nice subject lines, then that should be equally informative. > thing. That is to say, we take the CHANGES file that shipped with 1.5.0 and > add another section to it, a la the 1.4.x series. > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Keith Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >
