I agree with what Stack said. I think HBASE-5200 should be included in the next RC.
Cheers On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > Ram: > > I'd say go ahead and roll a new RC. > > I tried to convince Jon that this RC was no worse that previous > releases off this branch and that we could fix the licensing issue in > the next point release but he is not having it. > > While its true we could outvote him, as the rules allow, in general I > think it healthier all around if there are no votes against a release > when it goes out. Its tough enough finding volunteers to spend some > time evaluating candidates as it is; if someone has taken the time to > play with the release as its plain Jon has then I'd say lets respect > their opinion. > > Good on you Ram, > St.Ack > > P.S. Let me sign the artifacts before you announce the next candidate; > I'll download them and play with them to evaluate them and if > basically good, will do the signing. > > > > 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] > > >
