Sounds good. I'll mark them 0.90.7 when I commit, but someone else will have to change to 0.90.6 if an rc4 is needed.
Jon. On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jon > > Yes Jon I am fine with it. If I get +1 on this RC then I will release the > RC3 as the final version. If I don't get then I will take another RC with > your changes. > > Thanks Jon. Have a joyful vacation. (smile) > > Regards > Ram > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Hsieh [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 6:01 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download > > Ram, > > Sounds perfect. > > You've asked to freeze the 0.90 branch. Is it cool if I commit two > rat/license related patches onto the 0.90 branch later today? (I'm going > to be away from computer for a few weeks -- long needed vacation). > > Jon. > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > 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] > > > > > > > -- > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > // Software Engineer, Cloudera > // [email protected] > > -- // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) // Software Engineer, Cloudera // [email protected]
