Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hama 0.4-incubating (RC5)
+1 (binding) Tommaso 2012/2/18 Edward J. Yoon edwardy...@apache.org Hi all, We'd like to ask your approval to release the Hama RC5 as Apache Hama 0.4.0-incubating. This RC5 has passed the Hama PMC votes: http://markmail.org/thread/iksvds4wthzelcoo Artifacts is: http://people.apache.org/~edwardyoon/dist/0.4-RC5/ Signing Keys is available at: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/hama/trunk/src/site/resources/files/KEYS SVN Tag is here: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/hama/tags/0.4-RC5/ And, the staging web site is at: http://people.apache.org/~edwardyoon/site/ [ ] +1 approve [ ] +0 no opinion [ ] -1 disapprove (because why) This vote will remain open for at least 72 hours. Thanks! -- Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon @eddieyoon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hama 0.4-incubating (RC5)
Can someone help me understand this error: http://pastie.org/3409741 Regards, Alan On Feb 17, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Edward J. Yoon wrote: Hi all, We'd like to ask your approval to release the Hama RC5 as Apache Hama 0.4.0-incubating. This RC5 has passed the Hama PMC votes: http://markmail.org/thread/iksvds4wthzelcoo Artifacts is: http://people.apache.org/~edwardyoon/dist/0.4-RC5/ Signing Keys is available at: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/hama/trunk/src/site/resources/files/KEYS SVN Tag is here: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/hama/tags/0.4-RC5/ And, the staging web site is at: http://people.apache.org/~edwardyoon/site/ [ ] +1 approve [ ] +0 no opinion [ ] -1 disapprove (because why) This vote will remain open for at least 72 hours. Thanks! -- Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon @eddieyoon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
For me too, org.apache.oozie.service.TestPauseTransitService passed on 1 retry. +1 on the release. Great job! Mona On 2/17/12 2:50 PM, Harsh J ha...@cloudera.com wrote: +1 on rc2 (ccb3e271892d6e69881eb3785ef2bc3c). (On OSX) - Downloaded, ran bin/mkdistro.sh and it ended in a success after one retry. (Test org.apache.oozie.service.TestPauseTransitService seems a little flaky, but may be just me, cause eventual runs of that specific test all passed - it just failed on my first run). On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Virag Kothari vi...@yahoo-inc.com wrote: Hi, Downloaded the source, ran the test cases - all works fine! +1 Thanks, Virag On 2/17/12 3:38 AM, Chris Douglas cdoug...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Mohammad Islam misla...@yahoo.com 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 cdoug...@apache.org To: oozie-...@incubator.apache.org Cc: Mohammad Islam misla...@yahoo.com; oozie-us...@incubator.apache.org oozie-us...@incubator.apache.org 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 t...@cloudera.com 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 cdoug...@apache.org 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 misla...@yahoo.com 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 d...@hortonworks.com To: oozie-...@incubator.apache.org Cc: Oozie-users oozie-us...@incubator.apache.org 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
Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
+1 on rc2 (ccb3e271892d6e69881eb3785ef2bc3c). (On OSX) - Downloaded, ran bin/mkdistro.sh and it ended in a success after one retry. (Test org.apache.oozie.service.TestPauseTransitService seems a little flaky, but may be just me, cause eventual runs of that specific test all passed - it just failed on my first run). On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Virag Kothari vi...@yahoo-inc.com wrote: Hi, Downloaded the source, ran the test cases - all works fine! +1 Thanks, Virag On 2/17/12 3:38 AM, Chris Douglas cdoug...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Mohammad Islam misla...@yahoo.com 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 cdoug...@apache.org To: oozie-...@incubator.apache.org Cc: Mohammad Islam misla...@yahoo.com; oozie-us...@incubator.apache.org oozie-us...@incubator.apache.org 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 t...@cloudera.com 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 cdoug...@apache.org 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 misla...@yahoo.com 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 d...@hortonworks.com To: oozie-...@incubator.apache.org Cc: Oozie-users oozie-us...@incubator.apache.org 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)
Re: [VOTE] Release MRUnit version 0.8.1-incubating
classifier names look good. +1 (non-binding :) ) On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Brock Noland br...@cloudera.com wrote: This is an incubator release for Apache MRUnit, version 0.8.1-incubating. It fixes the following issues: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311292version=12319881 *** Please download, test and vote by [3 working days after sending]. Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are provided for convenience. Source and binary files: http://people.apache.org/~brock/mrunit-0.8.1-incubating-candidate-1/ Maven staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemrunit-022/ The tag to be voted upon: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/mrunit/tags/release-0.8.1-incubating/ MRUnit's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/mrunit/dist/KEYS Note that the Incubator PMC needs to vote upon the release after a successful PPMC vote before any release can be made official.
[VOTE] Release MRUnit version 0.8.1-incubating
This is an incubator release for Apache MRUnit, version 0.8.1-incubating. It fixes the following issues: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311292version=12319881 *** Please download, test and vote by [3 working days after sending]. Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are provided for convenience. Source and binary files: http://people.apache.org/~brock/mrunit-0.8.1-incubating-candidate-1/ Maven staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemrunit-022/ The tag to be voted upon: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/mrunit/tags/release-0.8.1-incubating/ MRUnit's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/mrunit/dist/KEYS Note that the Incubator PMC needs to vote upon the release after a successful PPMC vote before any release can be made official. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
Hi, Downloaded the source, ran the test cases - all works fine! +1 Thanks, Virag On 2/17/12 3:38 AM, Chris Douglas cdoug...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Mohammad Islam misla...@yahoo.com 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 cdoug...@apache.org To: oozie-...@incubator.apache.org Cc: Mohammad Islam misla...@yahoo.com; oozie-us...@incubator.apache.org oozie-us...@incubator.apache.org 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 t...@cloudera.com 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 cdoug...@apache.org 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 misla...@yahoo.com 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 d...@hortonworks.com To: oozie-...@incubator.apache.org Cc: Oozie-users oozie-us...@incubator.apache.org 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).
Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
+1 looks good. Thanks, Mayank On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Chris Douglas cdoug...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Mohammad Islam misla...@yahoo.com 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 cdoug...@apache.org To: oozie-...@incubator.apache.org Cc: Mohammad Islam misla...@yahoo.com; oozie-us...@incubator.apache.org oozie-us...@incubator.apache.org 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 t...@cloudera.com 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 cdoug...@apache.org 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 misla...@yahoo.com 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 d...@hortonworks.com To: oozie-...@incubator.apache.org Cc: Oozie-users oozie-us...@incubator.apache.org 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
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduation of Lucy to TLP
: The Apache Lucy community feels ready to graduate from the Incubator. As the Lucy Champion Mentor I think the Lucy community has definitely reached self sufficience and self direction. In aggregate, the the Lucy PPMC knows as much about the Apache Way as any of the members, and they've satisfied all of the criteria for graduation, so I don't see any reason why they should continue to stay in the Incubator. There is certainly room for growth, but that's true of every Apache project -- they can continue do it as a TLP just as easily as a podling... : * five releases : * three new PPMC members : * five new committers -Hoss - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduation of Lucy to TLP
+1, amen to that, brother. Time to Lucy to become a TLP! Cheers, Chris On Feb 17, 2012, at 9:50 AM, Chris Hostetter wrote: : The Apache Lucy community feels ready to graduate from the Incubator. As the Lucy Champion Mentor I think the Lucy community has definitely reached self sufficience and self direction. In aggregate, the the Lucy PPMC knows as much about the Apache Way as any of the members, and they've satisfied all of the criteria for graduation, so I don't see any reason why they should continue to stay in the Incubator. There is certainly room for growth, but that's true of every Apache project -- they can continue do it as a TLP just as easily as a podling... : * five releases : * three new PPMC members : * five new committers -Hoss - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Isis release 0.2.0-incubating (RC3)
+1 On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Dan Haywood d...@haywood-associates.co.uk wrote: Isis is in the process of voting on 0.2.0-incubating (RC3). The thread below has the details, along with current votes cast. We still need one more +1 from a member before we can release. I'd like to close this vote in 72 hours from now, to ensure adequate time for oversight from the IPMC and hopefully to attract the +1 additional member vote that we need Many thanks Dan -- Forwarded message -- From: Dan Haywood d...@haywood-associates.co.uk Date: 17 February 2012 09:01 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Isis release 0.2.0-incubating (RC3) To: isis-...@incubator.apache.org My +1, for the record. We currently have +2 members (Mark, Benson) and +3 others (Kevin, Robert, Matthew). I'm going to forward this thread to the Incubator IPMC because it needs approval there and also, hopefully, to pick up the additional +1 from a member. Dan On 10 February 2012 15:36, Dan Haywood d...@haywood-associates.co.uk wrote: All, I've staged a release candidate for Apache Isis, namely 0.2.0-incubating (RC3) The artifacts have been staged to staging repository on repository.apache.org: * https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheisis-216/org/apache/isis/isis/0.2.0-incubating/isis-0.2.0-incubating-source-release.zip(zip file) * https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheisis-216/org/apache/isis/isis/0.2.0-incubating/isis-0.2.0-incubating-source-release.zip.asc(signature) In Subversion the code has been tagged as tags/isis-0.2.0-incubating/framework. I've also uploaded a new version of the site at http://incubator.apache.org/isis-0.2.0-incubating. The contributors guide on the site contains some suggestions of how to verify the release, see http://incubator.apache.org/isis-0.2.0-incubating/docbkx/html/guide/ch12.html. Please note that RAT check is now configured in the parent pom.xml and can now be performed using mvn org.apache.rat:apache-rat-plugin:check. Please verify the release and cast your vote. The vote will be open for a minimum of 72 hours. [ ] +1 [ ] 0 [ ] -1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
+1 (non-binding from a user/contributor) - pulled down the artifacts and did the maven tests on them. Got it to complete, but on one of the test runs I got test failures for TestPauseTransitService and TestSshActionExecutor. I think those may need to just be looked at for completion consistency and not anything to do with the code their testing. On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Mayank Bansal wrote: +1 looks good. Thanks, Mayank On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Chris Douglas cdoug...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Mohammad Islam misla...@yahoo.com 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 cdoug...@apache.org To: oozie-...@incubator.apache.org Cc: Mohammad Islam misla...@yahoo.com; oozie-us...@incubator.apache.org oozie-us...@incubator.apache.org 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 t...@cloudera.com 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 cdoug...@apache.org 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 misla...@yahoo.com 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 d...@hortonworks.com To: oozie-...@incubator.apache.org Cc: Oozie-users oozie-us...@incubator.apache.org 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.
Re: [VOTE] Apache Isis release 0.2.0-incubating (RC3)
+1 (binding) On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.comwrote: +1 On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Dan Haywood d...@haywood-associates.co.uk wrote: Isis is in the process of voting on 0.2.0-incubating (RC3). The thread below has the details, along with current votes cast. We still need one more +1 from a member before we can release. I'd like to close this vote in 72 hours from now, to ensure adequate time for oversight from the IPMC and hopefully to attract the +1 additional member vote that we need Many thanks Dan -- Forwarded message -- From: Dan Haywood d...@haywood-associates.co.uk Date: 17 February 2012 09:01 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Isis release 0.2.0-incubating (RC3) To: isis-...@incubator.apache.org My +1, for the record. We currently have +2 members (Mark, Benson) and +3 others (Kevin, Robert, Matthew). I'm going to forward this thread to the Incubator IPMC because it needs approval there and also, hopefully, to pick up the additional +1 from a member. Dan On 10 February 2012 15:36, Dan Haywood d...@haywood-associates.co.uk wrote: All, I've staged a release candidate for Apache Isis, namely 0.2.0-incubating (RC3) The artifacts have been staged to staging repository on repository.apache.org: * https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheisis-216/org/apache/isis/isis/0.2.0-incubating/isis-0.2.0-incubating-source-release.zip(zipfile) * https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheisis-216/org/apache/isis/isis/0.2.0-incubating/isis-0.2.0-incubating-source-release.zip.asc(signature) In Subversion the code has been tagged as tags/isis-0.2.0-incubating/framework. I've also uploaded a new version of the site at http://incubator.apache.org/isis-0.2.0-incubating. The contributors guide on the site contains some suggestions of how to verify the release, see http://incubator.apache.org/isis-0.2.0-incubating/docbkx/html/guide/ch12.html . Please note that RAT check is now configured in the parent pom.xml and can now be performed using mvn org.apache.rat:apache-rat-plugin:check. Please verify the release and cast your vote. The vote will be open for a minimum of 72 hours. [ ] +1 [ ] 0 [ ] -1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving - Albert Einstein
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hama 0.4-incubating (RC5)
I'll figure out that plugin later. By the way, should we must use a rat-plugin? On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: Can someone help me understand this error: http://pastie.org/3409741 Regards, Alan On Feb 17, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Edward J. Yoon wrote: Hi all, We'd like to ask your approval to release the Hama RC5 as Apache Hama 0.4.0-incubating. This RC5 has passed the Hama PMC votes: http://markmail.org/thread/iksvds4wthzelcoo Artifacts is: http://people.apache.org/~edwardyoon/dist/0.4-RC5/ Signing Keys is available at: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/hama/trunk/src/site/resources/files/KEYS SVN Tag is here: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/hama/tags/0.4-RC5/ And, the staging web site is at: http://people.apache.org/~edwardyoon/site/ [ ] +1 approve [ ] +0 no opinion [ ] -1 disapprove (because why) This vote will remain open for at least 72 hours. Thanks! -- Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon @eddieyoon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon @eddieyoon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
