Am I reading the tallies correctly? 0.98: pass with four +1s 1.0: pass with four +1s 1.1: fail with two +1s 1.2: pass with three +1s, one -1, and one non-binding -1
This presumes I did not miss a vote cancellation from a release manager (which I've done in the past, tbf). As an aside, could we do these as a single vote in the future? -- Sean Busbey On Jul 18, 2016 17:47, "Josh Elser" <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the response, Andrew! > > I've started knocking out the source-release issues. Will put up a patch > with how far I get tonight. > > Andrew Purtell wrote: > >> 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. >>> >>
