Hmm let's close this thread. Do we need an official vote thread? Or can we move forward without it?
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 on continuing with the release without 0.20 artifacts > > The Hadoop 0.20 profile is actually not Apache Hadoop 0.20, it’s specific > to CDH3 instead [1]. It’s there from the time when Sqoop was Cloudera > project running on github and we’ve just not updated it since then. Knowing > that those bits might not work on pure Apache Hadoop 0.20, I would even go > as far as dropping that profile completely if nobody objects. > > Jarcec > > Links: > 1: https://github.com/apache/sqoop/blob/trunk/build.xml#L126 > > > On May 4, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Venkat Ranganathan < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > +1. Good work identifying this Gwen. > > > > If this is an issue, we can remedy it in 1.4.7 > > > > Venkat > > > > > > > > > > On 5/4/15, 11:29 AM, "Abraham Elmahrek" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I'm +1 on this. I doubt there are many users of 0.20 these days. > >> > >> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Gwen Shapira <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Sqoop Developers, > >>> > >>> There was a slight oversight on my part as a release mentor and Sqoop > 1.4.6 > >>> passed a vote with 0.20 artifacts missing. > >>> > >>> I suggest that since the vote passed, we can release the artifacts we > voted > >>> on, even though 0.20 is missing. Under the assumption that if 0.20 was > >>> critical, the issue would be raised during the voting process (I > believe > >>> 0.20 is pretty much extinct by now). > >>> > >>> Any objections? > >>> > >>> Gwen > >>> > >
