Let's extend the discussion for a further 24 hours. Procedurally, I don't think I can withdraw the result of the 1.2 RC1 vote but if we can't reach lazy consensus in 24 hours (ending 10am Pacific on Sunday) I will discard RC1 and move on to an RC2.
And for what it's worth, I believe that I was justified in calling the RC1 vote. We had the required excess of binding +1 votes over binding -1 votes, and as release manager I made the call that I thought the release was sound. After you expressed your reservations, Vladimir and Nick cast +1 votes. However, I now think I should have recorded your vote as -0. As for whether RC1 is suitable to be released. I argue that the documented build process succeeds because I intend to include a mention of CALCITE-677 and its workaround in the release announcement. Here are my arguments for why the release is sound. Calcite is on a short (1 month) release cycle and there are projects that depend on this release (Hive and now Phoenix). Yes, that affects my judgement about whether the release is fit for purpose, and it should. Engineering is a compromise. One line in the release notes documenting a workaround to a minor, locale-specific problem, in new functionality, that will be fixed in a release in less than a month, is better, in my opinion, than several days delay in the release, an extra day of my time to create a new RC and several hours of other people's time to vote on it. I would like to hear what the rest of the community thinks. To repeat, we can not change the result of the RC1 vote at this point, but it we cannot reach consensus in 24 hours I will discard RC1 and move on to an RC2. Julian On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> wrote: > I didn't do an immediate -1 because I wanted to have a discussion. Not > waiting for the discussion to complete before calling the vote was > unfortunate. > > What was the big exception to spinning another release? To me, an Apache > release's two most important criteria are correct licensing and a default > build that works. > On Apr 10, 2015 10:14 AM, "Julian Hyde" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'd rather press ahead with the release. This is a minor issue in new >> functionality, and shows up in the test suite (not the build per se). >> I've logged https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-677 and will >> mention it in the release notes. >> >> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Build fails seems like a showstopper to me, especially if the fix is one >> > liner. Would rather redo here than have the Incubator general shoot it >> > down. >> > On Apr 10, 2015 2:13 AM, "Vladimir Sitnikov" < >> [email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> I've added @Ignore to the particular test and it went through. >> >> It's a bit annoying to break "mvn install", however I would not >> >> consider that a show-stopper either. >> >> >> >> Build works, mat-calcite-plugin works with Calcite 1.2.0-incubating. >> >> >> >> I would consider several modifications to mvn poms (see [1]), however >> >> those do not block the release either. >> >> >> >> +1 for the release >> >> >> >> [1]: >> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-619?focusedCommentId=14489188&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14489188 >> >> >> >> Vladimir >> >> >>
