Sounds good. On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Jordan Birdsell <jordantbirds...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds reasonable to me > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 5:06 PM Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > Hey folks, > > > > I'm wrapping up the creation of 1.1.0 RC0 in the next few minutes. I > > noticed during my review of the branch that there are still a few items > > missing on the release notes (eg the wire compatibility section just says > > 'XXX'). > > > > Rather than delay the vote to finish these up, I'd like to suggest that > we > > build an RC0 as is (with the work-in-progress rel notes) and people can > > start their testing/voting/etc. Then we can finish up the rel notes and > any > > other doc changes in parallel and do an abbreviated "re-vote" on an RC1 > > incorporating these changes. We can easily verify that the two RCs are > > identical modulo the docs/ directory so we shouldn't need to re-build or > > re-test for this RC1. > > > > I propose we keep the normal 72-hour total voting period across both RCs, > > but that everyone be required to "propagate" their vote to RC1 when it is > > available. For example, I'll send out RC0 for vote this afternoon, then > > send out RC1 within 36 hours. We'd still close the vote 72 hours after > RC0 > > was made available (Thurs afternoon). Does that sound acceptable? > > > > -Todd > > > > -- > > Todd Lipcon > > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > >
