Hi Chris, So can the other contributors/committers VOTE now? As oozie-user VOTE is already closed, what would be the best option at this stage? 1. Go to genenral@incubator and vote there. 2. Vote in the same threadat oozie-user
Regards, Mohammad ________________________________ From: Chris Douglas <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: Mohammad Islam <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:13 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2) That's a pretty dire error in the documentation if that's the impression. Projects (and podlings) are responsible for their code, community, and releases. The PPMC certifies that the artifact represents an iteration of its progress by voting on a release in some series, just as a PMC does. The IPMC has a functionary, mundane role. It's supposed to make cursory checks: code being released respects the licensing requirements of dependencies, notices give accurate guidance to downstream consumers of that code, etc. Since the ASF is releasing that code under license, the idea is that IPMC members protect the foundation from common misunderstandings (e.g. if a podling thought they could release GPL'd code, someone else's code, etc.). Once the project has some experience with releases, a clear understanding of what the ASF wants w.r.t. community, etc. then podling graduates. Before that, the voting guidelines are necessary because the IPMC members are acting on behalf of the foundation. The vote from the PPMC expresses that the artifact represents their output. The vote from the IPMC certifies that the artifact won't get the ASF into legal trouble. Release votes are a strict majority per ASF bylaws. AFAICT, asserting that the IPMC votes are the only ones that are binding in the second round is just adding a layer of indirection to solve a counting problem. -C On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris, > > I'm a bit confused here, I've thought that the significant votes where from > the IPMC. > > I guess most of the committers/contributors thought along the same lines. > > Thxs. > > Alejandro > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Chris Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The vote didn't attract any votes from contributors. As far as I know, >> none of the voters in this thread actually develop Oozie. >> >> The IPMC vote is a check on the podling's compliance with licensing >> and other foundation-level practices. It's far, far less significant >> than the community's appraisal of the release itself. Would the PPMC >> please weigh in? -C >> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Mohammad Islam <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Hi All, >> > As 72 hours has passed, I would like to close the vote. >> > The proposed RC-2 got three +1s from three mentors without -1 or 0. >> > >> > Special thanks to mentors who gave their valuable feedback to make it >> better. >> > I also want to mention Alejandro and Virag who helped to make the whole >> process smoother. >> > Now I will ask for vote in general@incubator >> > >> > Regards, >> > Moahmmad >> > >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > From: Devaraj Das <[email protected]> >> > To: [email protected] >> > Cc: Oozie-users <[email protected]> >> > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:42 PM >> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2) >> > >> > I ran the tests and also inspected the top level txt files. Looks good. >> > >> > +1 for the release. >> > >> > On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Mohammad Islam wrote: >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Thanks everyone for giving valuable comments for the RC0 and RC1. >> >> >> >> I created a new candidate (RC2) build for Oozie-3.1.3 incorporating >> most of the comments (including Chris's finding). >> >> The following JIRAs were resolved based on the comments: >> >> >> >> OOZIE-694 Update the Install and Quick start guide with appropriate >> hadoop versions for branch-3.1 (Mohammad) >> >> OOZIE-602 Update the Hadoop version to be an Apache Hadoop version >> (tucu) >> >> OOZIE-689 XTestCase proxyuser settings fails with Hadoop 1.0.0/0.23.1 >> (tucu) >> >> OOZIE-601 Oozie's POMs should use org.apache.oozie as group (tucu) >> >> OOZIE-685 Update License file with 3rd party license information. >> (Mohammad) >> >> OOZIE-682 Update version 3.1.3 to 3.1.3-incubating in all >> pom.xml.(Mohammad) >> >> OOZIE-683 Add DISCLAIMER file in the root.(Mohammad) >> >> OOZIE-681 Update readme.txt contents.(Mohammad) >> >> OOZIE-680 oozie's assembly creates an extra level of empty subdirectory >> for docs. (rvs via tucu) >> >> OOZIE-608 testCoordChangeEndTime and testCoordChangeXCommand are >> failing(Mohamed). >> >> OOZIE-678 Update NOTICE.txt to reflect the workcount binaries into >> oozie src(Mohammad) >> >> >> >> Keys used to sign the release are available at >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/oozie/trunk/KEYS?view=markup. >> >> >> >> Please download, test, and try it out from here: >> >> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~kamrul/oozie-3.1.3-incubating-candidate-2/ >> >> >> >> The release log, md5 signature, gpg signature, and rat report all can >> be found at the above link. >> >> In case, anyone is interested, the svn tag from the release was created >> could be found at : >> >> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/oozie/tags/release-3.1.3-rc2/ >> >> >> >> Should we release this? Vote closes on Feb 15th. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Mohammad >>
