That makes sense to me.
Best regards, Alexey On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:05 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 >
