@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] change in bylaws to remove Release Plan vote
Hi Jagane,
My response to your concerns is that I hope the PMC will have enough wisdom not
to pass votes for a confusing number of releases -- if only to avoid the kind
of fragmentation you point out could
Hi Jagane,
My response to your concerns is that I hope the PMC will have enough wisdom
not to pass votes for a confusing number of releases -- if only to avoid
the kind of fragmentation you point out could happen.
To date, however, this does not seem to have been a major problem in our
community.
Hi Konstantin,
The amendment I've proposed actually leaves the Release Plan in place. In
fact, where one could say the current bylaws don't require a Release Plan
for every release, this amendment makes clear that it does. It just
doesn't have to be voted on.
I would think that a controversial
Couldn't reply yesterday.
I will try to argue this is a useful action and that keeping it in Bylaws
does not change regular release process.
- Bylaws do not require to vote on every release plan.
If nobody complains then it is a routine process of building a RC and
voting on it.
- It is useful to
+1 (non-binding)
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Chris Nauroth
> wrote:
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > Chris Nauroth
> > Hortonworks
> > http://hortonworks.com/
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Tom
+1 (non-binding)
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Chris Nauroth
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Chris Nauroth
> Hortonworks
> http://hortonworks.com/
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Tom White wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tom
>>
>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
>
+1 (non-binding)
Chris Nauroth
Hortonworks
http://hortonworks.com/
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Tom White wrote:
> +1
>
> Cheers,
> Tom
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently
> we
>
+1
Cheers,
Tom
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> Hi all,
> This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently we
> have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the dev community that any
> committer can create a branch, and propose release candidates from
+1
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Jonathan Eagles wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently
> we
> > have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the dev community that any
> >
+1
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> Hi all,
> This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently we
> have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the dev community that any
> committer can create a branch, and propose release candidates from it. Yet
> t
+1 (committer vote; not sure if it is binding on this or not)
On 21 May 2013 23:47, Jagane Sundar wrote:
> I see one significant benefit to having Release Plan votes: Fewer releases
> with more members of the community working on any given release.
> In turn, fewer Hadoop releases implies less confusion for end users
> attempting to download and use an Apac
Hi Jagane,
since you did not explicitly cast a -1 or other numerical vote, please if
you wish go ahead and cast a vote in the VOTE thread.
Best regards,
--Matt
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Jagane Sundar wrote:
> I see one significant benefit to having Release Plan votes: Fewer releases
> wi
Ok, if no one complains I will phrase the vote to include +1's explicitly
cast in the discussion thread.
--Matt
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) <
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Why repeat just tally new ones?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 21, 2013, at 6:58
Why repeat just tally new ones?
Sent from my iPhone
On May 21, 2013, at 6:58 PM, "Matt Foley" wrote:
> 13/14 +1's. I think that constitutes consensus. Moving this to a VOTE
> thread. Please repeat your +1s :-)
> Cheers,
> --Matt
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Mahadev Konar wrote:
>
13/14 +1's. I think that constitutes consensus. Moving this to a VOTE
thread. Please repeat your +1s :-)
Cheers,
--Matt
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Mahadev Konar wrote:
> +1.
>
> thanks
> mahadev
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Karthik Kambatla
> wrote:
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> >
+1.
thanks
mahadev
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Karthik Kambatla wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Jitendra Pandey
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
>>
>> > +1 thanks Matt.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:1
+1 (non-binding)
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Jitendra Pandey
wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
>
> > +1 thanks Matt.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > > This has been a side topic in several email thre
+1
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
> +1 thanks Matt.
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently
> we
> > have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the dev community th
+1 (non-binding)
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
> +1 thanks Matt.
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently
> we
> > have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the de
+1 thanks Matt.
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> Hi all,
> This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently we
> have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the dev community that any
> committer can create a branch, and propose release candidates fro
+1, thanks for taking the initiative on this Matt.
On May 21, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> Hi all,
> This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently we
> have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the dev community that any
> committer can create a branch, and pr
I see one significant benefit to having Release Plan votes: Fewer releases with
more members of the community working on any given release.
In turn, fewer Hadoop releases implies less confusion for end users attempting
to download and use an Apache Hadoop release.
If there are a dozen different
+1
--
Arpit Gupta
Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/
On May 21, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> Hi all,
> This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently we
> have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the dev community that any
> committer can create a bran
+1
-Giri
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> Hi all,
> This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently we
> have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the dev community that any
> committer can create a branch, and propose release candidates from it.
+1
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently
> we
> > have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the dev community that any
> >
+1
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> Hi all,
> This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently we
> have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the dev community that any
> committer can create a branch, and propose release candidates from it. Yet
> t
+1
I've always found the Release Plan votes a bit bizarre, and the fact that
we've gone through many releases that did not have a corresponding Release
Plan vote suggest to me that we should just scrap them.
--
Aaron T. Myers
Software Engineer, Cloudera
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Chris D
+1
Thanks for taking care of this, Matt. -C
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> Hi all,
> This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently we
> have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the dev community that any
> committer can create a branch, and prop
+1million
I completely agree with Chris D's separate email too about not
vote'ing about intentions, and voting on actual artifacts.
The fact of the matter at the ASF is that any PMC member; heck any
contributor can roll a release candidate. If that candidate receives
at least 3 PMC member +1s (to
30 matches
Mail list logo
