Update: All license issues mentioned in the general vote from Luciano (pom files, docker files, docs) have been fixed on master [1][2].
Let me know if there's more to address. -sz [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14138 [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14142 On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 7:54 AM Michael Wall <mjw...@gmail.com> wrote: > So is the plan option 3? I have seen tickets fixing licenses, so good work > there. When a vote is started on dev@mxnet.a.o, include wording about not > waiting the full 72 hours since this is just updating licensing. Get as > many +1 votes as you can on both the release and not waiting then move on > to IPMC. The vote on general@incubator.a.o should still stay open 72 > hours. I will look at it as soon as it is posted, but maybe reach out to > the other mentors directly asking for their help to review as soon as it is > out. The goal is to have the 3 or more +1 votes and more positive then > negative as soon as the 72 hours hits. > > Mike > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:44 AM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > wrote: > > > forgot to CC dev > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > > From: Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > > > Subject: Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) > > version 1.4.0.rc2 > > > Date: 13 February 2019 at 6:43:48 pm AEDT > > > To: Michael Wall <mjw...@gmail.com> > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > >> Option 1: > > >> Do nothing. I don't know how a RESTARTED vote works. > > > > > > I don’t believe there is such a concept. > > > > > >> Option 2: > > >> Start another vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the > > original vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o and the canceled vote thread. > > > > > > It may end up with the same outcome. > > > > > >> Option 3: > > >> 1 - Fix the header issues. > > > <snip> > > >> 3 - Start a vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the new > > vote thread from step 2. Will likely need to be open 72 hours. > > > > > > Just be aware it can take longer, sometime much longer, to get the 3 +1 > > IPMC votes. > > > > > >> Tough position to be in with Horovod being released. > > > > > > Which show the risk of tying in your release cycle with a non Apache > > product. IMO you need to be independent of 3rd party releases and not > tied > > to their milestones. If they wanted to include a particular unreleased > > version of ASF software, you should started the release a long time ahead > > of time just in case problems were encountered issues.This probably > > wouldn't be an issue if you made more frequent releases, it’s easier to > > check compliance with frequent releases so the 3rd party could just take > > the last good release and go with that. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Justin > > > > >
