If we go with shortened voting period, my assumption is that RC3 would be RC2 + fix for HBASE-15252, right ?
Cheers On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > On Feb 11, 2016 18:33, "张铎" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Should we include HBASE-15252? It is a data loss issue. > > > > > > > > > > It's marked major (though perhaps that's off since it's dataloss, even > if > > > rare). More importantly it's been present in prior releases for some > > time. > > > > > > Blocking 1.2.0 would put pressure on getting a solution faster, I > think. > > > Additionally, letting the fix wait for 1.2.1 will give me a good > > incentive > > > to keep the path releases on schedule. ;) > > > > > > My 2¢. Happy to roll another RC if folks see it otherwise. > > > > > > > Dataloss. I think we should roll a new RC with short voting timeframe. > > St.Ack > > > > > Alright then. Here's my > > -1 do not release due to dataloss bug HBASE-15252. > > One of Stack, Elliott, or Ted will need to change your vote to 0 or -1 to > avoid the RC passing. > > I think it'd be safe to interpret your statement as a change of vote, but > clarity please for posterity. :) > > -- > Sean >
