Canceling this RC , will come up with new RC once LICENSE and NOTICE issues(PHOENIX-3091) are resolved.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 11:38 AM, James Taylor <jamestay...@apache.org> wrote: > Switching my vote to -1. Our releases need to conform to ASF policy. > > Besides the stuff that Josh is already doing (thanks so much, Josh), my > recommendation would be to: > - cancel the vote on the current release. Ankit - as RM would you mind > doing that? > - remove the trace UI module from both the source and binary releases as > it's the cause of the majority of issues. > - don't tackle the automation issue yet as we need to get 4.8.0 out ASAP - > it's late as it is. > > Thanks, > James > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Option #2 looks ok but I think implied it is source release only, right? > > > > Option #3 is the full solution so that's fine. > > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Carrying this over from the discussion. > > > > > > -1 (binding) > > > > > > Option 1 isn't viable. Getting IP right in a release is fundamental. > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >> 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. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > Hein > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) > > >
