Hi, Downloaded the source, ran the test cases - all works fine! +1
Thanks, Virag On 2/17/12 3:38 AM, "Chris Douglas" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>
