On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> wrote:
> For 0.7.1 I'm asking for a free pass OR we sink it right away, push the > release notes ASAP, and roll out a new RC with a 24h voting period. > I'd be +0 on skipping for this release. However it probably means we need a "docs release" tag so we know where to build the docs from for pushing them to the site. I'm also +1 for a quick 24h vote on RC2, especially if all we put in it are docs changes relative to RC1. Personally I don't think relnotes for a patch release need to be at the standard of a major release. Just a list of the most important changes is probably sufficient. Something else we could do is simply "git rm" the release notes from the master branch docs and make it a web site-only thing. That fully decouples it from voting, and maybe it makes life easier for the RM. Mike > > J-D > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Mike Percy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Our release notes come bundled with the source package. In this case our > > notes are there in docs/ but it seems strange to only have 0.7.0 relnotes > > in a 0.7.1 release tarball. > > > > Mike > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On Mar 4, 2016, at 6:21 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > I feel strongly against having to have the release notes updated on the > > > website before being able to roll out an RC. It always takes at least > one > > > day to get reviews for that, more on big releases. Then, following RCs > > > might also need to have the notes updated, which delays things even > more. > > > > > > If folks care about having some minimal form of release notes, we can > do > > > something similar to what HBase does: > > > https://github.com/apache/hbase/blob/master/CHANGES.txt > > > > > > J-D > > > > > >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Perhaps we can keep voting on this release, finish up the release > notes > > >> today, and have a quick turnaround on rc2? I imagine if the diff > between > > >> the tags is only in the docs/ directory, we can get the voting done > in a > > >> couple hours (just verify the sha/signature, no need to rebuild and > > retest > > >> if the code is identical) > > >> > > >> -Todd > > >> > > >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans < > [email protected] > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Just planning on pushing them to the website when 0.7.1 is > available.. > > >>> > > >>>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Mike Percy <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Or maybe what you're saying is that you're already planning for an > > RC2. > > >>>> > > >>>>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Mike Percy <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I'm a little confused about this. So you're saying that we won't > > >>> include > > >>>>> release notes in the source artifact for the release? That seems > > >> pretty > > >>>>> atypical. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Mike > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 11:34 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans < > > >>> [email protected]> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Yeah was planning on casually doing that. My gripe with release > > >> notes > > >>> is > > >>>>>> that they take time to write and review, delaying an RC by days if > > >> we > > >>>> were > > >>>>>> to wait for them to be written before releasing it. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Should we edit docs/release_notes.adoc to include release notes > > >> for > > >>>>>> 0.7.1 > > >>>>>>> before releasing? It seems odd that the release wouldn't mention > > >> the > > >>>>>> latest > > >>>>>>> version in the included release notes. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> -Todd > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans < > > >>>> [email protected] > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Hi, > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> We're happy to announce the first release candidate for Apache > > >>> Kudu > > >>>>>>>> (incubating) 0.7.1. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> This release fixes a few important bugs found during the process > > >>> of > > >>>>>>>> releasing 0.7.0 that didn't warrant sinking the vote for. It > > >> also > > >>>>>> takes > > >>>>>>>> care of fixing some licenses. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> The is a source-only release. The artifacts were staged here: > > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/kudu/0.7.1-RC1/ > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> It was built from this tag: > > >> > > > https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-kudu.git;a=commit;h=bd191ec7366e13c3a11c6144f3b5af03d6496b38 > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> The list of all issues fixed can be found here: > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20KUDU%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%200.7.1 > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> KEYS file: > > >>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/kudu/KEYS > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I'd suggest going through the README, building Kudu, and running > > >>> the > > >>>>>> unit > > >>>>>>>> tests. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Please try the release and vote; vote will be open for at least > > >> 72 > > >>>>>> hours. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> J-D > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>> Todd Lipcon > > >>>>>>> Software Engineer, Cloudera > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Todd Lipcon > > >> Software Engineer, Cloudera > > >> > > >
