On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Mohammad Islam <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Chris, > So can the other contributors/committers VOTE now?
Yes > 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 Might as well show support/express reservations on the general@incubator thread so it's in one place. IIRC the general@ thread cc'd oozie-dev. -C > 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 >>>
