Ok, cancelling this vote, will pull the release notes and start a new 24h vote (or a little more, if I get to it by 5pm).
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Mike Percy <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > For 0.7.1 I'm asking for a free pass OR we sink it right away, push the > > release notes ASAP, and roll out a new RC with a 24h voting period. > > > > I'd be +0 on skipping for this release. However it probably means we need a > "docs release" tag so we know where to build the docs from for pushing them > to the site. I'm also +1 for a quick 24h vote on RC2, especially if all we > put in it are docs changes relative to RC1. > > Personally I don't think relnotes for a patch release need to be at the > standard of a major release. Just a list of the most important changes is > probably sufficient. > > Something else we could do is simply "git rm" the release notes from the > master branch docs and make it a web site-only thing. That fully decouples > it from voting, and maybe it makes life easier for the RM. > > Mike > > > > > > J-D > > > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Mike Percy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Our release notes come bundled with the source package. In this case > our > > > notes are there in docs/ but it seems strange to only have 0.7.0 > relnotes > > > in a 0.7.1 release tarball. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 2016, at 6:21 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I feel strongly against having to have the release notes updated on > the > > > > website before being able to roll out an RC. It always takes at least > > one > > > > day to get reviews for that, more on big releases. Then, following > RCs > > > > might also need to have the notes updated, which delays things even > > more. > > > > > > > > If folks care about having some minimal form of release notes, we can > > do > > > > something similar to what HBase does: > > > > https://github.com/apache/hbase/blob/master/CHANGES.txt > > > > > > > > J-D > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Perhaps we can keep voting on this release, finish up the release > > notes > > > >> today, and have a quick turnaround on rc2? I imagine if the diff > > between > > > >> the tags is only in the docs/ directory, we can get the voting done > > in a > > > >> couple hours (just verify the sha/signature, no need to rebuild and > > > retest > > > >> if the code is identical) > > > >> > > > >> -Todd > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Just planning on pushing them to the website when 0.7.1 is > > available.. > > > >>> > > > >>>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Mike Percy <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Or maybe what you're saying is that you're already planning for an > > > RC2. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Mike Percy <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I'm a little confused about this. So you're saying that we won't > > > >>> include > > > >>>>> release notes in the source artifact for the release? That seems > > > >> pretty > > > >>>>> atypical. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Mike > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 11:34 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans < > > > >>> [email protected]> > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> Yeah was planning on casually doing that. My gripe with release > > > >> notes > > > >>> is > > > >>>>>> that they take time to write and review, delaying an RC by days > if > > > >> we > > > >>>> were > > > >>>>>> to wait for them to be written before releasing it. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Should we edit docs/release_notes.adoc to include release notes > > > >> for > > > >>>>>> 0.7.1 > > > >>>>>>> before releasing? It seems odd that the release wouldn't > mention > > > >> the > > > >>>>>> latest > > > >>>>>>> version in the included release notes. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> -Todd > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans < > > > >>>> [email protected] > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Hi, > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> We're happy to announce the first release candidate for Apache > > > >>> Kudu > > > >>>>>>>> (incubating) 0.7.1. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> This release fixes a few important bugs found during the > process > > > >>> of > > > >>>>>>>> releasing 0.7.0 that didn't warrant sinking the vote for. It > > > >> also > > > >>>>>> takes > > > >>>>>>>> care of fixing some licenses. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> The is a source-only release. The artifacts were staged here: > > > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/kudu/0.7.1-RC1/ > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> It was built from this tag: > > > >> > > > > > > https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-kudu.git;a=commit;h=bd191ec7366e13c3a11c6144f3b5af03d6496b38 > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> The list of all issues fixed can be found here: > > > >> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20KUDU%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%200.7.1 > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> KEYS file: > > > >>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/kudu/KEYS > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> I'd suggest going through the README, building Kudu, and > running > > > >>> the > > > >>>>>> unit > > > >>>>>>>> tests. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Please try the release and vote; vote will be open for at > least > > > >> 72 > > > >>>>>> hours. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> J-D > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>> Todd Lipcon > > > >>>>>>> Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Todd Lipcon > > > >> Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > >> > > > > > >
