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:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:54 AM To: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> 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 >> // [email protected] >> >> >> > > > -- > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > // Software Engineer, Cloudera > // [email protected] > > > -- // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) // Software Engineer, Cloudera // [email protected]
