The licensing issues should affect all 4 RCs, so they all should fail or succeed atomically. Having 4.8.0-HBase-0.98 with slightly different content than 4.8.0-HBase-1.1, etc is just asking for trouble.
Thinking about this, doing the votes together makes sense. Otherwise, we might end up with 4.8.0 meaning a different thing for different hbase versions. Enis On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > 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. > >>> > >> >
