Konstantin, Cos, As we change from 2.0.4.1 to 2.0.5 you'll need to do the following housekeeping as you work the new RC.
* rename the svn branch * update the versions in the POMs * update the CHANGES.txt in trunk, branch-2 and the release branch * change the current 2.0.5 version in JIRA to 2.1.0, create a new 2.0.5 version, change the fix version of the 2 JIRAs that make the RC Thanks. On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Chris Douglas <cdoug...@apache.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> > wrote: > > I have no issues of changing the version to 2.0.5-alpha and restarting > to vote > > for the release content, e.g. 2 bug fixes. Shall I call 3 days re-vote > because > > of the number change? > > +1 Sounds great. > > > Does the result of bylaw vote nullifies the unfinished vote started by > Arun? > > Sorry, I am dense, apparently. > > Yes, nobody should feel bound by either vote. The bylaw change > clarifies that release plans are for RMs to solicit feedback and gauge > PMC support for an artifact, not pre-approvals for doing work. > > > Can we limit the vote thread to the merits of the release then? > > Happily. > > > That sound like adding an insult to injury, if my forth-language skills > do not > > mislead me. > > They do mislead you, or I've expressed the point imprecisely. We can > take this offline. -C > > >> >> > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 01:48PM, Chris Douglas wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Arun C Murthy < > a...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > Why not include MAPREDUCE-4211 as well rather than create one > release per patch? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> From Cos's description, it sounded like these were backports of > fixes > >> >> >> to help Sqoop2 and fix some build issues. If it's not just to > fixup > >> >> >> leftover bugs in 2.0.4 *once* so downstream projects can integrate > >> >> >> against 2.0.4.1, and this a release series, then I've completely > >> >> >> misunderstood the purpose. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Cos, are you planning 2.0.4.2? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Also, this is the first time we are seeing a four-numbered > scheme in Hadoop. Why not call this 2.0.5-alpha? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Good point. Since it contains only backports from branch-2, it > would > >> >> >> make sense for it to be an intermediate release. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I shouldn't have to say this, but I'm changing my vote to -1 > while we > >> >> >> work this out. -C > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On May 24, 2013, at 8:48 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> All, > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I have created a release candidate (rc0) for > hadoop-2.0.4.1-alpha that I would > >> >> >> >> like to release. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> This is a stabilization release that includes fixed for a > couple a of issues > >> >> >> >> discovered in the testing with BigTop 0.6.0 release candidate. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> The RC is available at: > http://people.apache.org/~cos/hadoop-2.0.4.1-alpha-rc0/ > >> >> >> >> The RC tag in svn is here: > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop/common/tags/release-2.0.4.1-alpha-rc0 > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> The maven artifacts are available via repository.apache.org. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Please try the release bits and vote; the vote will run for > the usual 7 days. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Thanks for your voting > >> >> >> >> Cos > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > -- Alejandro
