Hi James,
Sorry for the lag. I personally think that the disclaimer isn't
negotiable in an incubator release, but that's my personal opinion.
You have 4 binding +1s now, so you can ignore my opinion :) I
understand others points of view on the matter, and there's a good
reason we don't have vetoe
Hi Enis, thx for the Vote.
There was already "commitment" from James to fix the disclaimer so I would
not think this should be a release blocker.
Thx,
Henry
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014, Enis Söztutar wrote:
> +1 (binding).
>
> - Checked the src and binary artifacts.
> - Checked sigs
> - Chec
+1 (binding).
- Checked the src and binary artifacts.
- Checked sigs
- Checked CRCs
- Built the src artifacts
If the DISCLAIMER file will not sink the RC, lets go ahead with releasing
this. Otherwise we would need a new RC.
Enis
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:11 AM, James Taylor wrote:
> Thanks,
HI Andrew,
Yeah, probably need to file JIRA to track this to make sure it is
included in next proposed release.
I am assuming this RC have your +1 Vote?
- Henry
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Andrew Purtell
wrote:
> Let's also change the Phoenix POM to not exclude the files in examples/ si
Signatures looks ok
Hashes looks ok
Notice and License files looks good.
+1 (binding)
For next release it would be better to have more mentors VOTE on the
release to oversee the proposed artifacts before going to general@
list.
Should help catching missing DISCLAIMER file.
Good luck guys.
- He
Would it be possible for an IPMC member to clarify if you're waiting on us
for something and if so what?
Thanks,
James
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:11 AM, James Taylor wrote:
> Thanks, Marvin. We'll update this in our next release too, as we'd like to
> follow the preferred path.
>
> With these c
Thanks, Marvin. We'll update this in our next release too, as we'd like to
follow the preferred path.
With these changes for our next release, are we good to go for this release?
Thanks,
James
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:18 AM, James Tayl
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:18 AM, James Taylor wrote:
> Also, should we drop the ".txt"
> extension on the NOTICE and LICENSE files for our next release?
http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#license-file-name
Can the LICENSE and NOTICE files be called LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt?
David,
Would it be possible to get a +1 for this release provided we add the
DISCLAIMER file in our next release? Also, should we drop the ".txt"
extension on the NOTICE and LICENSE files for our next release?
Thanks,
James
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 4:55 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10,
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:33 PM, James Taylor wrote:
> Thanks for the review, David. We do have a NOTICE.txt in both the source
> and binary tar ball (in the phoenix-2.2.3-incubating directory). Is that
> the correct way to do it?
>
> We'll add the missing license headers in those couple of examp
Let's also change the Phoenix POM to not exclude the files in examples/ since
they have been raised as an issue more than once, if I guess correctly here.
> On Mar 10, 2014, at 6:18 PM, David Nalley wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 1:43 PM, James Taylor wrote:
>> Hello Everyone,
>> This is
Thanks for the review, David. We do have a NOTICE.txt in both the source
and binary tar ball (in the phoenix-2.2.3-incubating directory). Is that
the correct way to do it?
We'll add the missing license headers in those couple of example files
where it's missing for our next release.
Thanks,
James
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 1:43 PM, James Taylor wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> This is a call for a vote on Apache Phoenix 2.2.3 incubating RC4. 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
+1
Ran unit tests, checked hash, and checked for license compliance.
This is a repeat of my vote from over on the phoenix list.
St.Ack
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:43 AM, James Taylor wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> This is a call for a vote on Apache Phoenix 2.2.3 incubating RC4. Phoenix
> is a SQL
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:43 PM, James Taylor 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, Dav
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 wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:37 PM, James Taylor
>
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:37 PM, James Taylor 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
Thanks for the clarifications and background reading.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> Taking a step back... My feeling about many of the ASF's policy docs is
> that
> they would be clearer if they were formulated using imperatives
> (SHOULD/MUST/etc.) rather than as FAQs
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> The how-to-release documentation perhaps has more room for interpretation
> than is desirable.
FWIW, I've cleaned up some of the Incubator's Release Management guide and
though it's still messy overall, some chunks are ready for use IMO --
On 24 February 2014 18:25, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Henry Saputra
> wrote:
>
>> Are you saying it is ok to contain compiled executed binaries if they
>> were signed?
>>
>
> I did not take a position on that.
>
> The how-to-release documentation perhaps has more ro
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Henry Saputra wrote:
> Are you saying it is ok to contain compiled executed binaries if they
> were signed?
>
I did not take a position on that.
The how-to-release documentation perhaps has more room for interpretation
than is desirable.
There had been long dis
Hi Andrew,
Are you saying it is ok to contain compiled executed binaries if they
were signed?
There had been long discussion in general@ list about what should be
contained in release artifacts (with 0.8.1 Spark release) and I
believe the conclusion was to avoid executable binaries in the source
I'll cancel this vote and start a vote on a new RC shortly. There was a
pretty serious bug that was found in this one anyway.
Is it best practice to have a separate source-only tar bar and not include
the source in the binary tar ball? Or should it be included in both?
Thanks,
James
On Mon, Feb
Hi Sebb,
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 2:19 AM, sebb wrote:
> I've had a quick look at the (sole) archive, and it contains both
> source and compiled jars.
> Although it is OK to release convenience binaries, there must be a
> source only release, as that is the ASF mission - to release open
> source.
On 22 February 2014 01:12, James Taylor 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
25 matches
Mail list logo
