The vote has closed. The final results, as I see them, are: PMC (+6, -4) +1: Christopher Tubbs, Keith Turner, William Slacum, Dave Marion (with reservations), Eric Newton, Jason Trost -1: Adam Fuchs, John Vines, Josh Elser, David Medinets
Other (+1, -3) +1: German Gutierrez -1: Sean Busbey, Mike Drob, David Lyle If we count all votes, it's a tie. And if we only count PMC, it's still pretty split, especially considering Dave Marion's +1 came with reservations. Either way, I'm thinking there isn't enough consensus (not for me to be comfortable commit the change). So, in the interests of moving forward and playing cautiously, I think we can table this and postpone it for the 1.6.0 development cycle. We can revisit this at the beginning of the 1.7.0 development cycle. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > Agreed. > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: >> That would have also been my assumption since it was not otherwise stated. >> However, given the nature of this vote, I believe non-binding votes should >> also be carefully considered. >> >> >> On 6/6/13 10:22 AM, Billie Rinaldi wrote: >>> >>> I would assume all our votes are "community welcome to vote, only >>> committers binding." >>> >>> Billie >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:52 AM, David Medinets >>> <david.medin...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Who is voting - the accumulo community, the PMC members, or some other >>>> subset of people? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:51 PM, David Lyle <dlyle65...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> -1 Prefer to stay on java 1.6 until pulled by features or eol. >>>>> >>>>> -D... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:53 PM, German Gutierrez >>>>> <gutierrezg...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello Everyone, >>>>>> >>>>>> I vote for in favor. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> German A. Gutierrez >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> All- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java >>>>>>> dependency to >=1.7. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the >>>>>>> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the >>>>>>> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a >>>>>>> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free >>>> >>>> to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of >>>>>>> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant >>>>>>> to come to a concrete opinion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal >>>> >>>> to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> me. I just want a concrete resolution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II >>>>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos >>>>>>> >>>>>>> authentication >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on >>>>> >>>>> the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Accumulo implementation as well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <b...@sqrrl.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> CDH4 comes with some additional caveats about 1.7: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Release-Notes/cdh4rn_topic_2_2.html?scroll=concept_c1n_bln_tj_unique_1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The biggest one being the disclaimer about 1.7 compiled code. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Sean >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
