If we could have a single vote, that'd be great, but I didn't think that was possible. Would we be voting on the union of all the source codes across all four branches? Is it acceptable to be voting on multiple hash/tags (since they're in different branches)? What about binary release? We'd have multiple tar files, one per branch.
There's a fair amount of automation and process already developed for our release procedure. This is the way we've been doing things for the last 10+ releases (for good or for bad). Unless the new process would be more or less the same as the old, I think we need to get 4.8.0 out first (following all ASF policies, of course), before changing our documentation, automation, etc. On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Enis Söztutar <e...@apache.org> wrote: > 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. > > >>> > > >> > > >
