Agreed with Sean. There's no reason that I'm aware of that each target HBase version has to be its own VOTE thread. The semantics of "all-or-none" would definitely seem logical to be encapsulated in one vote thread.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > AFAIK, PMCs can organize their VOTEs as they please. The only > requirement I'm aware of is being able to point at a VOTE that covers > the release. I don't see why a single VOTE that covers multiple git > REFs and multiple artifacts (even in different directories on > dist.apache) would be a problem. I can think of one case where this > was done before (Apache NiFi; I think they were in the incubator at > the time). > > Agreed that this kind of process change doesn't need to be blocking. > It's just confusing that right now we can end up with a mixed vote > result across hbase compatibility layers (although I guess that could > be considered a feature if a fatal compability-layer-specific bug were > to show up). > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 1:33 AM, James Taylor <jamestay...@apache.org> wrote: >> 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. >>> > >>> >>> > >> >>> > >>> > > > > -- > busbey
