I think it's something that we can discuss (joking - let's not do it ;) ) According to https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#votes-on-code-modification, -1 is a veto on code modifications. "A code-modification proposal may be stopped dead in its tracks by a -1 vote by a qualified voter. This constitutes a veto, and it cannot be overruled nor overridden by anyone. Vetos stand until and unless withdrawn by their casters."
This was voting on a process of the release, so it's a bit blurry - it's neither code modification nor releasing package itself, it's more of a meta issue. But regardless if it was a veto or not - your -1 made me think and I withdraw this proposal as it was. I think the proposal in the [PROPOSAL] thread now is much better, complete and gentle to our users. Also Fokko expressed his concerns that he had not seen the discussion before, so it makes sense to get to the drawing board anyway. Better to do it well than fast as it will be with us for a while. J. On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 1:26 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: > I should clarify, my -1 here is not a veto. > > -ash > On Feb 19 2020, at 9:40 am, Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> wrote: > > Since we have -1 from Ash. The vote is cancelled for now. I have some > ideas > > to address Ash's concern and will continue the discussion in the > > corresponding [PROPOSAL] thread here: > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rf6f2de8056b00ad084c96a9428670c14421a89ba2bbbd362d833bb50%40%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E > > > > > > J. > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:46 AM Driesprong, Fokko <fo...@driesprong.frl> > > wrote: > > > > > Where is the code? I don't know what I'm voting for. If we want to do > this, > > > why aren't we cherry-picking this in the branch? I feel like I'm > > > missing something. > > > > > > Cheers, Fokko > > > Op di 18 feb. 2020 om 23:14 schreef Jarek Potiuk < > jarek.pot...@polidea.com > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > How do you propose to address this Ash (and _we_ especially) ? Any > idea > > > how > > > > _we_ can do it? > > > > > > > > J. > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:54 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > -1 from me. > > > > > I would favour individual small releases, not a back-port big blob. > > > > > And I would also rather _we_ put the effort in to working out > > > > > compatibility issues/breaking changes in providers (and to be > honest > > > > > avoiding them in most cases) rather than making our users do this > > > > > guess/experience breakages from upgrades. > > > > > On Feb 18 2020, at 9:49 pm, Kamil Breguła < > kamil.breg...@polidea.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > CalVer is a fantasstic idea. > > > > > > https://calver.org/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:37 PM Jarek Potiuk < > > > > jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since we are close to run tests for backport packages at GCP I > > > would > > > > > like > > > > > > > to start vote on the release process for backport packages. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The vote will last till Friday, 21st of Feb, 11pm CET. > > > > > > > The proposal is to release one single backport "providers" > package > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > now > > > > > > > with Calver scheme: > > > > > > > *apache-airflow-providers-backport-1.10-YYYY.MM.DD* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The conditions for release are: > > > > > > > 1) Unit tests are passing in master > > > > > > > 2) Backport packages are installable on latest released airflow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.10.x > > > > > > > (currently 1.10.9) with python 3.6 and 3.7. > > > > > > > 3) Compatibility matrix is produced for tested providers (using > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > system > > > > > > > tests where applicable) > > > > > > > 4) Only PMCs have binding votes on the release as with Apache > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Airflow > > > > > > > official releases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Committers have a binding vote but everyone from the community > is > > > > > > > encouraged to cast an advisory vote. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consider this my biding +1 vote. > > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk > > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software > Engineer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > > > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jarek Potiuk > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > > -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
