Cancelling this vote due to mistakes in the LICENSE and NOTICE files. Will start a new vote shortly. Thanks, James
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:08 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:43 PM, James Taylor <jamestay...@apache.org> > wrote: > > Thanks so much, David for the review and words of encouragement. Don't > > worry, we won't get discouraged - we just want to get this right. > > > > See below for more questions/comments. > > > > Regards, > > James > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:26 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:37 PM, James Taylor <jamestay...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > Hello everyone, > >> > > >> > This is a call for a vote on Apache Phoenix 2.2.3 incubating. Phoenix > is > >> a > >> > SQL query engine for Apache HBase, a NoSQL data store. It is accessed > >> as a > >> > JDBC driver and enables querying and managing HBase tables using SQL. > >> This > >> > will be our first release in the incubator. > >> > > >> > The RC is available for download at > >> > http://people.apache.org/~jamestaylor/phoenix-2.2.3-incubating-RC3/and > >> is > >> > signed with my code signing key 5F5F3233. The source code may be > found in > >> > > >> > http://people.apache.org/~jamestaylor/phoenix-2.2.3-incubating-RC3/phoenix-2.2.3-incubating-src.tar.gzwhile > >> > a convenience, pre-built binary may be found in > >> > > >> > http://people.apache.org/~jamestaylor/phoenix-2.2.3-incubating-RC3/phoenix-2.2.3-incubating.tar.gz > >> > . > >> > > >> > GIT source tag: > >> > > >> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=log;h=refs/tags/v2.2.3 > >> > GIT commit: > >> > > >> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=commit;h=5e7d071693b6ad4adb758b94d53808a75feeae26 > >> > > >> > >> Hi James: > >> > >> Nice to see phoenix working on a release so rapidly. > >> This vote is missing a lot of information that makes it much harder to > >> work with. > >> Has your dev list seen this vote? If so a link to the [RESULT] of that > >> vote would be nice. If not, why not? (I couldn't find an RC3 vote in > >> my hasty look at your archives) > >> > > > > A vote was held on developer mailing list for the previous release > > candidate, RC2, and it passed with 4 +1's, and no -1's or +0's (2 votes > > were from IPMC members). The thread is here: > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201402.mbox/%3CCAAF1JdjsiHGFYQjkMVSWJmGaRJQd0fJJRVAB7J70-i2tLR2UkA%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > This release candidate, RC3, has one additional bug fix and a separate > > source-only tar ball. I proposed on our dev list not to hold a new vote, > > but rather start a vote on the general list instead, since the changes > were > > minimal and no one objected. > > > > Is that ok? > > > > It is probably technically acceptable from a very strict > interpretation of the release guidelines since it's a release of the > incubator. I think socially and from a incubator learning process that > you are shortchanging yourself. Keep in mind the IPMC wants to see > that the community can function on its own, and iterating over RCs is > just part of the process. > > > How many binding IPMC votes did you get on your dev list vote? (If you > >> have enough binding votes, I might not expend the time, while if you > >> are lacking votes I might be willing to invest the time to help) > >> The RC2 vote email was a bit better in the last two regards. > >> Please put the RC# in the subject - this was threaded in my mail > >> client under an RC2 mail. > >> > > > > I'll make sure to include the RC# in the subject next time. > > > > > > Thanks - that dramatically improves readability. > > >> > >> Where is your KEYS file? (does phoenix have a space on dist.a.o?) Even > >> having your key in your LDAP profile would be ok, but you don't link > >> to the key, which is extra work. You'll need a KEYS file when you > >> publish anyway. > >> > > > > I will generate the KEYS file and include in the same directory. We'll > put > > our next release/release candidate in dist.a.o, as that seems the norm. > > > > > > Good. > > > >> > >> The NOTICE and LICENSE files are problematic. NOTICE in the source > >> tarball contains notices for software that simply doesn't exist in the > >> source tarball. And LICENSE in the convenience binary seems to be > >> missing licenses for software that is included. > >> Have a look here: > >> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice for more > >> details. > >> > > > > The NOTICE file of our source-only distribution matches the one from our > > binary distribution which is a mistake. Our source-only distribution does > > not include source from any other projects. Does that mean we don't need > a > > NOTICE file for our source-only distribution? > > You need a NOTICE file, but it only need contain the notice for the > ASF (in the source distribution) > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice > > > > > For our binary distribution, we'll make another pass through our indirect > > dependencies and update the NOTICE and LICENSE as needed. > > > > Should we roll a new RC and start a new thread after these changes? > > Yep, I'd roll a new RC, kick a vote off on your dev list and bring it > back here when done. > > --David > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
