With PMC hat on I am -1 releasing with known policy violations. This is the same position I took when it was HBase releases at issue. Option 1 is not a good option. Let's go with another.
> On Jul 18, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > > (Moving this over to its own thread to avoid bogging down the VOTE further) > > PMC, what say you? I have cycles to work on this now. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 4.8.0-HBase-1.2 RC0 > Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:43:54 -0400 > From: Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> > To: dev@phoenix.apache.org > > Sean Busbey wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Ankit Singhal >> <ankitsingha...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Now we have three options to go forward with 4.8 release (or whether to >>> include licenses and notices for the dependency used now or later):- >>> >>> *Option 1:- Go with this RC0 for 4.8 release.* >>> -- As the build is functionally good and stable. >>> -- It has been delayed already and there are some project which are >>> relying on this(as 4.8 works with HBase 1.2) >>> -- We have been releasing like this from past few releases. >>> -- RC has binding votes required for go head. >>> -- Fix license and notice issue in future releases. >> >> >> I would *strongly* recommend the PMC not take Option 1's course of >> action. ASF policy on necessary licensing work is very clear. >> Additionally, if the current LICENSE/NOTICE work is sufficiently >> inaccurate that it fails to meet the licensing requirements of bundled >> works then the PMC will have moved from accidental nonconformance in >> prior releases to knowingly violating the licenses of those works in >> this release. Reading the JIRAs that Josh was helpful enough to file, >> it sounds like the current artifacts would in fact violate the >> licenses of bundled works. > > In case my opinions weren't already brutally clear: the issue is not the > functionality of the software "Apache Phoenix". This issue is that this > release candidate clearly violates ASF policy. Quite certainly option > one would result in escalation to the board -- I don't know how that > will play out. It's not meant to be a threat, either, but a reality. > This is one of the core responsibilities of the PMC. There really isn't > any wiggle room. > > I can start knocking out the issues I created -- I really don't think > this will take more than a day or two for the source release and the > binary artifact.
