[HBase-dev] ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

Jonathan Hsieh

at Feb 7, 2012 at 4:39 am

Good news, I'm +1 from a functionality point of view. Bad news I think I
have to -1 from an administrative point of view. I'm kind of new to this,
so folks please correct me if I shouldn't be concerned.

Looks good to me from a functional point of view:
+ Setup on a 5 node cluster on top of CDH3u3 HDFS
++ Ran Apache Bigtop 0.3.0-SNAPSHOT's TestLoadAndVerify overnight in a loop
++ Did some manual kill tests of masters, as well as root, meta and random
RS.
+ Diffed the 'ls -R' of 0.90.5 and 0.90.6 and diffs looked sane based on
patches.
+ md5sums look good.

I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I think of
have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
- mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in the
0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.
- Ram, I think if I understand the signing stuff properly, your gpg
signature needs to be verifed/signed by someone else in the "web of trust".
(following these instructions:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/verification.html )

----
[jon@c0309 dist]$ gpg --verify hbase-0.90.6.tar.gz.asc
hbase-0.90.6.rc3.tar.gz
gpg: Signature made Sat 04 Feb 2012 09:24:17 PM PST using RSA key ID
867B57B8
gpg: Good signature from "Ramkrishna S Vasudevan (for code checkin) <
ram_krish_86@hotmail.com>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
owner.
Primary key fingerprint: 7405 BB74 016B E7D0 7B25 15E3 A1AB D56E 867B 57B8
[jon@c0309 dist]$ gpg --fingerprint 867B57B8
pub 4096R/867B57B8 2012-01-14
Key fingerprint = 7405 BB74 016B E7D0 7B25 15E3 A1AB D56E 867B 57B8
uid Ramkrishna S Vasudevan (for code checkin) <
ram_krish_86@hotmail.com>
sub 4096R/AE508DE2 2012-01-14
----

Jon.

On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Ramakrishna s vasudevan wrote:

Hi Devs

0.90.6RC3 is available for download.

http://people.apache.org/~ramkrishna/0.90.6RC3/

The new RC had to be taken due to the problem found in RC2. (HBASE-5321)
Internally we, in Huawei had carried out good testing with RC2+HBASE-5321.
Also for RC2 we got few +1s. This new RC is just with an added fix and
does not affect major stability of 0.90.6.

I would like to close the voting on Feb 8th. Because not much difference
between RC2 and RC3. Also the sooner we release 0.90.6 we can go ahead
with the commits to 0.90 branch. Please vote for the new RC.

Thanks for all your support.

Regards
Ram

P.S.
New fix added in RC3.
HBASE-5321 this.allRegionServersOffline not set to false after one RS
comes online and
assignment is done in 0.90.
________________________________________
From: Ramakrishna s vasudevan
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:09 PM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: FW: 0.90.6 RC2 available for download

Hi Devs

Just a gentle reminder on voting the 0.90.6RC2. Thanks one and all.

Regards
Ram
________________________________________
From: Ramakrishna s vasudevan
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:28 PM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: ANN: 0.90.6 RC2 available for download

Hi All

After the RC1 release cut, few problems with CHANGES.txt was found.
So i have taken a new release cut RC2 . It has an addendum for HBASE-5153
also.

Any issues found due to regression will be checked in for a new RC.

Till then would like to freeze all the code changes into 0.90. Any new
changes can go after the release of 0.90.6 is done.

Pls vote for the new RC
http://people.apache.org/~ramkrishna/0.90.6_RC2/ before February 4th.

Regards
Ram

________________________________________
From: Ramakrishna s vasudevan
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:10 PM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: ANN: 0.90.6 RC1 available for download Was: 0.90.6 Release status

Hi Devs

HBASE-0.90.6 RC1 is available for download at the following path.

http://people.apache.org/~ramkrishna/0.90.6_RC1

The following defects are included in this RC

HBASE-5196 - Failure in region split after PONR could cause region hole
HBASE-5153 - Add retry logic in
HConnectionImplementation#resetZooKeeperTrackers

HBASE-5225 - Backport HBASE-3845 -data loss because lastSeqWritten can
miss memstore edits
HBASE-5235 - HLogSplitter writer thread's streams not getting closed when
any of the writer threads has exceptions.
HBASE-5237 - Addendum for HBASE-5160 and HBASE-4397
HBASE-5269 - IllegalMonitorStateException while retryin HLog split in 0.90
branch. (Induced defect in 0.90.6RC0).

HBASE-5179 - Concurrent processing of processFaileOver and
ServerShutdownHandler may cause region to be assigned before log splitting
is completed, causing data loss

will not go into the release. After good testing and confirmation it
will be committed into future 0.90 and trunk branches.

Unless we get any defect from the regression of this RC i would like to
take this RC for 0.90.6 release.

Your suggestions are welcome.

Please vote +1/-1 for this RC. The vote closes on January 29th.

Regards
Ram

________________________________________
From: Ramakrishna s vasudevan
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:08 PM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: RE: 0.90.6 Release status

It is always better to get in a patch with test case. But if it takes a
little more time to get the test case can we verify the patch with good
cluster testing and raise a JIRA for the test case integration that Stack
gives.

By this way we can get the patch in the release and also satisfies Todd's
suggestion.

Any comments so that i can raise a test task for the same.

Regards
Ram
________________________________________
From: yuzhihong@gmail.com [yuzhihong@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 8:13 PM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Cc: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: 0.90.6 Release status

Stack said he would come up with some test for hbase-5179.
Suppose that takes a few more days, do you plan to check in the fix into
0.90 branch ?

According to Todd's suggestion earlier, a Jira shouldn't be open for too
long during which time patches continuously get checked in.

Cheers

On Jan 21, 2012, at 4:34 AM, Ramakrishna s vasudevan <
ramkrishna.vasudevan@huawei.com> wrote:

Hi Devs

After the first RC for 0.90.6 was taken
HBASE-5196 - Failure in region split after PONR could cause region hole
HBASE-5153 - Add retry logic in
HConnectionImplementation#resetZooKeeperTrackers
The above 2 defects have been committed.

HBASE-5179 - Concurrent processing of processFaileOver and

ServerShutdownHandler may cause region to be assigned before log splitting
is completed, causing data loss

HBASE-5225 - Backport HBASE-3845 -data loss because lastSeqWritten can
miss memstore edits
HBASE-5235 - HLogSplitter writer thread's streams not getting closed
when any of the writer threads has exceptions.
HBASE-5237 - Addendum for HBASE-5160 and HBASE-4397

HBASE-5179 - is almost in a final stage for committing. Thanks to
Chunhui, Ted and Jinchao for persisting on the defect.
The above defects were found during the testing for RC0. Hence i would
like to cut another RC once the above
defects goes into 0.90. By tomorrow 22nd January i would like to take a
release cut.
Please let me know your suggestions/opinions.

Regards
Ram

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

reply | permalink

Todd Lipcon

at Feb 7, 2012 at 5:12 am

⇧

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
- Ram, I think if I understand the signing stuff properly, your gpg
signature needs to be verifed/signed by someone else in the "web of trust".

Regarding signatures: if another committer reviews the release and is
willing to stand by it, that committer can sign the artifact in lieu
of Ram. So, if you vote +1 on the next release, Jon, you can sign it,
and I can sign your key at the office to get you into the apache "web
of trust".

-Todd

--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

reply | permalink

Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan

at Feb 7, 2012 at 5:27 am

⇧

Hi Jon

I have published my key in pub 4096R/867B57B8 in the MIT PGP public key
server.

Hope this is what you meant of publishing the key?

Regards
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Lipcon
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:41 AM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
- Ram, I think if I understand the signing stuff properly, your gpg
signature needs to be verifed/signed by someone else in the "web of

trust".

Regarding signatures: if another committer reviews the release and is
willing to stand by it, that committer can sign the artifact in lieu
of Ram. So, if you vote +1 on the next release, Jon, you can sign it,
and I can sign your key at the office to get you into the apache "web
of trust".

-Todd

--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

reply | permalink

Stack

at Feb 7, 2012 at 5:32 am

⇧

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan wrote:
Hi Jon

I have published my key in pub 4096R/867B57B8 in the MIT PGP public key
server.

Hope this is what you meant of publishing the key?

You've done the first part Ram.

See http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing#web-of-trust
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_signing_party

St.Ack

reply | permalink

Stack

at Feb 7, 2012 at 5:28 am

⇧

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I think of
have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
- mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in the
0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.

I went through a few. Looks like its complaining mostly because of
empty files, files it can't read the apache license in (because its
got xml preamble), etc. I'd say this is important but my guess is
that 0.90.5 wasn't much better. I'd suggest we could file an issue to
fix this in 0.90.7/0.92.1 but that maybe its not enough to sink the
release?

- Ram, I think if I understand the signing stuff properly, your gpg
signature needs to be verifed/signed by someone else in the "web of trust".
(following these
instructions: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/verification.html )

Good one.

I like Todd's suggestion. I was going to give it a spin in next day
or so. I could add my signature on the end?

St.Ack
P.S. Ram, here is a reason for why you need to come to SF for hbasecon
so we can meet you face to face and sign your key.

reply | permalink

Jonathan Hsieh

at Feb 9, 2012 at 4:40 pm

⇧

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Stack wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I think of
have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
- mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in the
0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.

I went through a few. Looks like its complaining mostly because of
empty files, files it can't read the apache license in (because its
got xml preamble), etc. I'd say this is important but my guess is
that 0.90.5 wasn't much better. I'd suggest we could file an issue to
fix this in 0.90.7/0.92.1 but that maybe its not enough to sink the
release?

I chatted with some of the apache veterans, and I'm going to stand by the
-1 unless the licenses are fixed. It should be trivial fix.

See this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
"What files in an Apache release do not require a license header?"

That said, release votes are by majority, and there is no veto:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

Jon.

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

reply | permalink

Jonathan Hsieh

at Feb 9, 2012 at 4:48 pm

⇧

I've filed a jira to add rat check to the build
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363

And to fix the licenses:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

I plan on implementing them when I get in to the office today.

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Stack wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I think of
have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
- mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in the
0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.

I went through a few. Looks like its complaining mostly because of
empty files, files it can't read the apache license in (because its
got xml preamble), etc. I'd say this is important but my guess is
that 0.90.5 wasn't much better. I'd suggest we could file an issue to
fix this in 0.90.7/0.92.1 but that maybe its not enough to sink the
release?

I chatted with some of the apache veterans, and I'm going to stand by the
-1 unless the licenses are fixed. It should be trivial fix.

See this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
"What files in an Apache release do not require a license header?"

That said, release votes are by majority, and there is no veto:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

Jon.
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

reply | permalink

Jonathan Hsieh

at Feb 10, 2012 at 5:24 am

⇧

Hey Ram,

You are the release manager so you get to decide if on the status of the
0.90.6 release. I believe we have a workaround for the key signing bit. I
believe the rules say a sufficient condition for a release is to have at
least 3 formal pmc +1's as long as there are more +1's than -1's. (There
is no veto on releases).

I've created patches that make rat run when you add a -Prelease profile to
the 0.90.x build and also a patch the fixes the licenses making rat pass.
If these are applied my current -1 vote will turn into a +1.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363 (takes 0.92 and trunk as
well)
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5377

Also, the license fixes for 0.92/trunk were fairly trivial and I'll give
Elliot credit for them on that patch:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:

I've filed a jira to add rat check to the build
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363

And to fix the licenses:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

I plan on implementing them when I get in to the office today.

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Stack wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I think of
have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
- mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in the
0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.

I went through a few. Looks like its complaining mostly because of
empty files, files it can't read the apache license in (because its
got xml preamble), etc. I'd say this is important but my guess is
that 0.90.5 wasn't much better. I'd suggest we could file an issue to
fix this in 0.90.7/0.92.1 but that maybe its not enough to sink the
release?

I chatted with some of the apache veterans, and I'm going to stand by the
-1 unless the licenses are fixed. It should be trivial fix.

See this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
"What files in an Apache release do not require a license header?"

That said, release votes are by majority, and there is no veto:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

Jon.
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

reply | permalink

Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan

at Feb 10, 2012 at 7:09 am

⇧

Hi Jon

First of all thanks a lot for working on the license issues.

As discussed with Stack the key signing part he said he can do it.
Currently for the 0.90.6RC3 only you have voted. I received 2 +1s on RC2
only.
If you can commit your changes once again we can take another RC for 0.90.6
but it may delay the release further.
So in another 2 days we get more +1s then we go ahead with this Rc3, if not
take another RC with your recent JIRAs and release that one.

Does that sound ok ? Good on you Jon.

Regards
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hsieh
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:54 AM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

Hey Ram,

You are the release manager so you get to decide if on the status of the
0.90.6 release. I believe we have a workaround for the key signing bit. I
believe the rules say a sufficient condition for a release is to have at
least 3 formal pmc +1's as long as there are more +1's than -1's. (There
is no veto on releases).

I've created patches that make rat run when you add a -Prelease profile to
the 0.90.x build and also a patch the fixes the licenses making rat pass.
If these are applied my current -1 vote will turn into a +1.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363 (takes 0.92 and trunk as
well)
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5377

Also, the license fixes for 0.92/trunk were fairly trivial and I'll give
Elliot credit for them on that patch:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:

I've filed a jira to add rat check to the build
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363

And to fix the licenses:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

I plan on implementing them when I get in to the office today.

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Stack wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I think of
have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
- mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in the
0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.

I went through a few. Looks like its complaining mostly because of
empty files, files it can't read the apache license in (because its
got xml preamble), etc. I'd say this is important but my guess is
that 0.90.5 wasn't much better. I'd suggest we could file an issue to
fix this in 0.90.7/0.92.1 but that maybe its not enough to sink the
release?

I chatted with some of the apache veterans, and I'm going to stand by the
-1 unless the licenses are fixed. It should be trivial fix.

See this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
"What files in an Apache release do not require a license header?"

That said, release votes are by majority, and there is no veto:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

Jon.
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

reply | permalink

Jonathan Hsieh

at Feb 10, 2012 at 12:31 pm

⇧

Ram,

Sounds perfect.

You've asked to freeze the 0.90 branch. Is it cool if I commit two
rat/license related patches onto the 0.90 branch later today? (I'm going
to be away from computer for a few weeks -- long needed vacation).

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan wrote:

Hi Jon

First of all thanks a lot for working on the license issues.

As discussed with Stack the key signing part he said he can do it.
Currently for the 0.90.6RC3 only you have voted. I received 2 +1s on RC2
only.
If you can commit your changes once again we can take another RC for 0.90.6
but it may delay the release further.
So in another 2 days we get more +1s then we go ahead with this Rc3, if
not
take another RC with your recent JIRAs and release that one.

Does that sound ok ? Good on you Jon.

Regards
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hsieh
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:54 AM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

Hey Ram,

You are the release manager so you get to decide if on the status of the
0.90.6 release. I believe we have a workaround for the key signing bit. I
believe the rules say a sufficient condition for a release is to have at
least 3 formal pmc +1's as long as there are more +1's than -1's. (There
is no veto on releases).

I've created patches that make rat run when you add a -Prelease profile to
the 0.90.x build and also a patch the fixes the licenses making rat pass.
If these are applied my current -1 vote will turn into a +1.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363 (takes 0.92 and trunk as
well)
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5377

Also, the license fixes for 0.92/trunk were fairly trivial and I'll give
Elliot credit for them on that patch:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:

I've filed a jira to add rat check to the build
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363

And to fix the licenses:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

I plan on implementing them when I get in to the office today.

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Stack wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I

think

of

have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
- mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in

the

0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.

I went through a few. Looks like its complaining mostly because of
empty files, files it can't read the apache license in (because its
got xml preamble), etc. I'd say this is important but my guess is
that 0.90.5 wasn't much better. I'd suggest we could file an issue to
fix this in 0.90.7/0.92.1 but that maybe its not enough to sink the
release?

I chatted with some of the apache veterans, and I'm going to stand by

the

-1 unless the licenses are fixed. It should be trivial fix.

See this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
"What files in an Apache release do not require a license header?"

That said, release votes are by majority, and there is no veto:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

Jon.
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

reply | permalink

Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan

at Feb 10, 2012 at 3:20 pm

⇧

Hi Jon

Yes Jon I am fine with it. If I get +1 on this RC then I will release the
RC3 as the final version. If I don't get then I will take another RC with
your changes.

Thanks Jon. Have a joyful vacation. (smile)

Regards
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hsieh
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 6:01 PM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

Ram,

Sounds perfect.

You've asked to freeze the 0.90 branch. Is it cool if I commit two
rat/license related patches onto the 0.90 branch later today? (I'm going
to be away from computer for a few weeks -- long needed vacation).

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan wrote:

Hi Jon

First of all thanks a lot for working on the license issues.

As discussed with Stack the key signing part he said he can do it.
Currently for the 0.90.6RC3 only you have voted. I received 2 +1s on RC2
only.
If you can commit your changes once again we can take another RC for 0.90.6
but it may delay the release further.
So in another 2 days we get more +1s then we go ahead with this Rc3, if
not
take another RC with your recent JIRAs and release that one.

Does that sound ok ? Good on you Jon.

Regards
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hsieh
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:54 AM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

Hey Ram,

You are the release manager so you get to decide if on the status of the
0.90.6 release. I believe we have a workaround for the key signing bit. I
believe the rules say a sufficient condition for a release is to have at
least 3 formal pmc +1's as long as there are more +1's than -1's. (There
is no veto on releases).

I've created patches that make rat run when you add a -Prelease profile to
the 0.90.x build and also a patch the fixes the licenses making rat pass.
If these are applied my current -1 vote will turn into a +1.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363 (takes 0.92 and trunk as
well)
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5377

Also, the license fixes for 0.92/trunk were fairly trivial and I'll give
Elliot credit for them on that patch:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:

I've filed a jira to add rat check to the build
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363

And to fix the licenses:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

I plan on implementing them when I get in to the office today.

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Stack wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I

think

of

have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
- mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in

the

0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.

I went through a few. Looks like its complaining mostly because of
empty files, files it can't read the apache license in (because its
got xml preamble), etc. I'd say this is important but my guess is
that 0.90.5 wasn't much better. I'd suggest we could file an issue to
fix this in 0.90.7/0.92.1 but that maybe its not enough to sink the
release?

I chatted with some of the apache veterans, and I'm going to stand by

the

-1 unless the licenses are fixed. It should be trivial fix.

See this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
"What files in an Apache release do not require a license header?"

That said, release votes are by majority, and there is no veto:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

Jon.
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

reply | permalink

Jonathan Hsieh

at Feb 10, 2012 at 4:37 pm

⇧

Sounds good. I'll mark them 0.90.7 when I commit, but someone else will
have to change to 0.90.6 if an rc4 is needed.

Jon.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan wrote:

Hi Jon

Yes Jon I am fine with it. If I get +1 on this RC then I will release the
RC3 as the final version. If I don't get then I will take another RC with
your changes.

Thanks Jon. Have a joyful vacation. (smile)

Regards
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hsieh
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 6:01 PM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

Ram,

Sounds perfect.

You've asked to freeze the 0.90 branch. Is it cool if I commit two
rat/license related patches onto the 0.90 branch later today? (I'm going
to be away from computer for a few weeks -- long needed vacation).

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan <
ramkrishna.vasudevan@huawei.com> wrote:

Hi Jon

First of all thanks a lot for working on the license issues.

As discussed with Stack the key signing part he said he can do it.
Currently for the 0.90.6RC3 only you have voted. I received 2 +1s on RC2
only.
If you can commit your changes once again we can take another RC for 0.90.6
but it may delay the release further.
So in another 2 days we get more +1s then we go ahead with this Rc3, if
not
take another RC with your recent JIRAs and release that one.

Does that sound ok ? Good on you Jon.

Regards
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hsieh
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:54 AM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

Hey Ram,

You are the release manager so you get to decide if on the status of the
0.90.6 release. I believe we have a workaround for the key signing bit. I
believe the rules say a sufficient condition for a release is to have at
least 3 formal pmc +1's as long as there are more +1's than -1's. (There
is no veto on releases).

I've created patches that make rat run when you add a -Prelease profile to
the 0.90.x build and also a patch the fixes the licenses making rat pass.
If these are applied my current -1 vote will turn into a +1.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363 (takes 0.92 and trunk as
well)
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5377

Also, the license fixes for 0.92/trunk were fairly trivial and I'll give
Elliot credit for them on that patch:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:

I've filed a jira to add rat check to the build
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363

And to fix the licenses:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

I plan on implementing them when I get in to the office today.

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Stack wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com>

wrote:

I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I

think

of

have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
- mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in

the

0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.

I went through a few. Looks like its complaining mostly because of
empty files, files it can't read the apache license in (because its
got xml preamble), etc. I'd say this is important but my guess is
that 0.90.5 wasn't much better. I'd suggest we could file an issue

to

fix this in 0.90.7/0.92.1 but that maybe its not enough to sink the
release?

I chatted with some of the apache veterans, and I'm going to stand by

the

-1 unless the licenses are fixed. It should be trivial fix.

See this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
"What files in an Apache release do not require a license header?"

That said, release votes are by majority, and there is no veto:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

Jon.
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

reply | permalink

Stack

at Feb 10, 2012 at 4:46 pm

⇧

Ram:

I'd say go ahead and roll a new RC.

I tried to convince Jon that this RC was no worse that previous
releases off this branch and that we could fix the licensing issue in
the next point release but he is not having it.

While its true we could outvote him, as the rules allow, in general I
think it healthier all around if there are no votes against a release
when it goes out. Its tough enough finding volunteers to spend some
time evaluating candidates as it is; if someone has taken the time to
play with the release as its plain Jon has then I'd say lets respect
their opinion.

Good on you Ram,
St.Ack

P.S. Let me sign the artifacts before you announce the next candidate;
I'll download them and play with them to evaluate them and if
basically good, will do the signing.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan
wrote:

Hi Jon

Yes Jon I am fine with it. If I get +1 on this RC then I will release the
RC3 as the final version. If I don't get then I will take another RC with
your changes.

Thanks Jon. Have a joyful vacation. (smile)

Regards
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hsieh
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 6:01 PM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

Ram,

Sounds perfect.

You've asked to freeze the 0.90 branch. Is it cool if I commit two
rat/license related patches onto the 0.90 branch later today? (I'm going
to be away from computer for a few weeks -- long needed vacation).

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan <
ramkrishna.vasudevan@huawei.com> wrote:

Hi Jon

First of all thanks a lot for working on the license issues.

As discussed with Stack the key signing part he said he can do it.
Currently for the 0.90.6RC3 only you have voted. I received 2 +1s on RC2
only.
If you can commit your changes once again we can take another RC for 0.90.6
but it may delay the release further.
So in another 2 days we get more +1s then we go ahead with this Rc3, if
not
take another RC with your recent JIRAs and release that one.

Does that sound ok ? Good on you Jon.

Regards
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hsieh
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:54 AM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

Hey Ram,

You are the release manager so you get to decide if on the status of the
0.90.6 release. I believe we have a workaround for the key signing bit. I
believe the rules say a sufficient condition for a release is to have at
least 3 formal pmc +1's as long as there are more +1's than -1's. (There
is no veto on releases).

I've created patches that make rat run when you add a -Prelease profile to
the 0.90.x build and also a patch the fixes the licenses making rat pass.
If these are applied my current -1 vote will turn into a +1.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363 (takes 0.92 and trunk as
well)
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5377

Also, the license fixes for 0.92/trunk were fairly trivial and I'll give
Elliot credit for them on that patch:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:

I've filed a jira to add rat check to the build
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363

And to fix the licenses:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

I plan on implementing them when I get in to the office today.

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Stack wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com>

wrote:

I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I

think

of

have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
- mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in

the

0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.

I went through a few. Looks like its complaining mostly because of
empty files, files it can't read the apache license in (because its
got xml preamble), etc. I'd say this is important but my guess is
that 0.90.5 wasn't much better. I'd suggest we could file an issue to
fix this in 0.90.7/0.92.1 but that maybe its not enough to sink the
release?

I chatted with some of the apache veterans, and I'm going to stand by

the

-1 unless the licenses are fixed. It should be trivial fix.

See this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
"What files in an Apache release do not require a license header?"

That said, release votes are by majority, and there is no veto:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

Jon.
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

reply | permalink

Ted Yu

at Feb 10, 2012 at 5:01 pm

⇧

I agree with what Stack said.

I think HBASE-5200 should be included in the next RC.

Cheers

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Stack wrote:

Ram:

I'd say go ahead and roll a new RC.

I tried to convince Jon that this RC was no worse that previous
releases off this branch and that we could fix the licensing issue in
the next point release but he is not having it.

While its true we could outvote him, as the rules allow, in general I
think it healthier all around if there are no votes against a release
when it goes out. Its tough enough finding volunteers to spend some
time evaluating candidates as it is; if someone has taken the time to
play with the release as its plain Jon has then I'd say lets respect
their opinion.

Good on you Ram,
St.Ack

P.S. Let me sign the artifacts before you announce the next candidate;
I'll download them and play with them to evaluate them and if
basically good, will do the signing.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan
wrote:

Hi Jon

Yes Jon I am fine with it. If I get +1 on this RC then I will release the
RC3 as the final version. If I don't get then I will take another RC with
your changes.

Thanks Jon. Have a joyful vacation. (smile)

Regards
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hsieh
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 6:01 PM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

Ram,

Sounds perfect.

You've asked to freeze the 0.90 branch. Is it cool if I commit two
rat/license related patches onto the 0.90 branch later today? (I'm going
to be away from computer for a few weeks -- long needed vacation).

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan <
ramkrishna.vasudevan@huawei.com> wrote:

Hi Jon

First of all thanks a lot for working on the license issues.

As discussed with Stack the key signing part he said he can do it.
Currently for the 0.90.6RC3 only you have voted. I received 2 +1s on

RC2

only.
If you can commit your changes once again we can take another RC for 0.90.6
but it may delay the release further.
So in another 2 days we get more +1s then we go ahead with this Rc3, if
not
take another RC with your recent JIRAs and release that one.

Does that sound ok ? Good on you Jon.

Regards
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hsieh
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:54 AM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

Hey Ram,

You are the release manager so you get to decide if on the status of the
0.90.6 release. I believe we have a workaround for the key signing bit.

I

believe the rules say a sufficient condition for a release is to have at
least 3 formal pmc +1's as long as there are more +1's than -1's.

(There

is no veto on releases).

I've created patches that make rat run when you add a -Prelease profile

to

the 0.90.x build and also a patch the fixes the licenses making rat

pass.

If these are applied my current -1 vote will turn into a +1.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363 (takes 0.92 and trunk

as

well)
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5377

Also, the license fixes for 0.92/trunk were fairly trivial and I'll give
Elliot credit for them on that patch:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:

I've filed a jira to add rat check to the build
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363

And to fix the licenses:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

I plan on implementing them when I get in to the office today.

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Stack wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com>

wrote:

I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I

think

of

have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
- mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in

the

0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.

I went through a few. Looks like its complaining mostly because of
empty files, files it can't read the apache license in (because its
got xml preamble), etc. I'd say this is important but my guess is
that 0.90.5 wasn't much better. I'd suggest we could file an issue

to

fix this in 0.90.7/0.92.1 but that maybe its not enough to sink the
release?

I chatted with some of the apache veterans, and I'm going to stand by

the

-1 unless the licenses are fixed. It should be trivial fix.

See this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
"What files in an Apache release do not require a license header?"

That said, release votes are by majority, and there is no veto:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

Jon.
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

reply | permalink

Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan

at Feb 11, 2012 at 11:13 am

⇧

Sure Stack. I will do it. Also let me see if any issues could go into the
next RC.
I probably think we have another one or two in store.

Regards
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: saint.ack@gmail.com On Behalf Of Stack
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:16 PM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

Ram:

I'd say go ahead and roll a new RC.

I tried to convince Jon that this RC was no worse that previous
releases off this branch and that we could fix the licensing issue in
the next point release but he is not having it.

While its true we could outvote him, as the rules allow, in general I
think it healthier all around if there are no votes against a release
when it goes out. Its tough enough finding volunteers to spend some
time evaluating candidates as it is; if someone has taken the time to
play with the release as its plain Jon has then I'd say lets respect
their opinion.

Good on you Ram,
St.Ack

P.S. Let me sign the artifacts before you announce the next candidate;
I'll download them and play with them to evaluate them and if
basically good, will do the signing.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan
wrote:

Hi Jon

Yes Jon I am fine with it. If I get +1 on this RC then I will release the
RC3 as the final version. If I don't get then I will take another RC with
your changes.

Thanks Jon. Have a joyful vacation. (smile)

Regards
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hsieh
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 6:01 PM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

Ram,

Sounds perfect.

You've asked to freeze the 0.90 branch. Is it cool if I commit two
rat/license related patches onto the 0.90 branch later today? (I'm going
to be away from computer for a few weeks -- long needed vacation).

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan <
ramkrishna.vasudevan@huawei.com> wrote:

Hi Jon

First of all thanks a lot for working on the license issues.

As discussed with Stack the key signing part he said he can do it.
Currently for the 0.90.6RC3 only you have voted. I received 2 +1s on RC2
only.
If you can commit your changes once again we can take another RC for 0.90.6
but it may delay the release further.
So in another 2 days we get more +1s then we go ahead with this Rc3, if
not
take another RC with your recent JIRAs and release that one.

Does that sound ok ? Good on you Jon.

Regards
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hsieh
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:54 AM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

Hey Ram,

You are the release manager so you get to decide if on the status of the
0.90.6 release. I believe we have a workaround for the key signing bit.

I

believe the rules say a sufficient condition for a release is to have at
least 3 formal pmc +1's as long as there are more +1's than -1's. (There
is no veto on releases).

I've created patches that make rat run when you add a -Prelease profile

to

the 0.90.x build and also a patch the fixes the licenses making rat pass.
If these are applied my current -1 vote will turn into a +1.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363 (takes 0.92 and trunk as
well)
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5377

Also, the license fixes for 0.92/trunk were fairly trivial and I'll give
Elliot credit for them on that patch:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:

I've filed a jira to add rat check to the build
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363

And to fix the licenses:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

I plan on implementing them when I get in to the office today.

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Stack wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com>

wrote:

I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I

think

of

have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
- mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in

the

0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.

I went through a few. Looks like its complaining mostly because of
empty files, files it can't read the apache license in (because its
got xml preamble), etc. I'd say this is important but my guess is
that 0.90.5 wasn't much better. I'd suggest we could file an issue

to

fix this in 0.90.7/0.92.1 but that maybe its not enough to sink the
release?

I chatted with some of the apache veterans, and I'm going to stand by

the

-1 unless the licenses are fixed. It should be trivial fix.

See this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
"What files in an Apache release do not require a license header?"

That said, release votes are by majority, and there is no veto:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

Jon.
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

reply | permalink

Jonathan Hsieh

at Feb 11, 2012 at 1:49 pm

⇧

Hey Ram,

Thanks for doing this. For some projects I've been involved with in the
incubator, the license stuff is something a lot of apache veterans care
about strongly.

Jon.

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan wrote:

Sure Stack. I will do it. Also let me see if any issues could go into the
next RC.
I probably think we have another one or two in store.

Regards
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: saint.ack@gmail.com On Behalf Of Stack
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:16 PM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

Ram:

I'd say go ahead and roll a new RC.

I tried to convince Jon that this RC was no worse that previous
releases off this branch and that we could fix the licensing issue in
the next point release but he is not having it.

While its true we could outvote him, as the rules allow, in general I
think it healthier all around if there are no votes against a release
when it goes out. Its tough enough finding volunteers to spend some
time evaluating candidates as it is; if someone has taken the time to
play with the release as its plain Jon has then I'd say lets respect
their opinion.

Good on you Ram,
St.Ack

P.S. Let me sign the artifacts before you announce the next candidate;
I'll download them and play with them to evaluate them and if
basically good, will do the signing.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan
wrote:

Hi Jon

Yes Jon I am fine with it. If I get +1 on this RC then I will release the
RC3 as the final version. If I don't get then I will take another RC with
your changes.

Thanks Jon. Have a joyful vacation. (smile)

Regards
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hsieh
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 6:01 PM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

Ram,

Sounds perfect.

You've asked to freeze the 0.90 branch. Is it cool if I commit two
rat/license related patches onto the 0.90 branch later today? (I'm going
to be away from computer for a few weeks -- long needed vacation).

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan <
ramkrishna.vasudevan@huawei.com> wrote:

Hi Jon

First of all thanks a lot for working on the license issues.

As discussed with Stack the key signing part he said he can do it.
Currently for the 0.90.6RC3 only you have voted. I received 2 +1s on

RC2

only.
If you can commit your changes once again we can take another RC for 0.90.6
but it may delay the release further.
So in another 2 days we get more +1s then we go ahead with this Rc3, if
not
take another RC with your recent JIRAs and release that one.

Does that sound ok ? Good on you Jon.

Regards
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hsieh
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:54 AM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

Hey Ram,

You are the release manager so you get to decide if on the status of the
0.90.6 release. I believe we have a workaround for the key signing bit.

I

believe the rules say a sufficient condition for a release is to have at
least 3 formal pmc +1's as long as there are more +1's than -1's.

(There

is no veto on releases).

I've created patches that make rat run when you add a -Prelease profile

to

the 0.90.x build and also a patch the fixes the licenses making rat

pass.

If these are applied my current -1 vote will turn into a +1.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363 (takes 0.92 and trunk

as

well)
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5377

Also, the license fixes for 0.92/trunk were fairly trivial and I'll give
Elliot credit for them on that patch:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:

I've filed a jira to add rat check to the build
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363

And to fix the licenses:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

I plan on implementing them when I get in to the office today.

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Stack wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com>

wrote:

I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I

think

of

have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
- mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in

the

0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.

I went through a few. Looks like its complaining mostly because of
empty files, files it can't read the apache license in (because its
got xml preamble), etc. I'd say this is important but my guess is
that 0.90.5 wasn't much better. I'd suggest we could file an issue

to

fix this in 0.90.7/0.92.1 but that maybe its not enough to sink the
release?

I chatted with some of the apache veterans, and I'm going to stand by

the

-1 unless the licenses are fixed. It should be trivial fix.

See this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
"What files in an Apache release do not require a license header?"

That said, release votes are by majority, and there is no veto:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

Jon.
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

reply | permalink

Stack

at Feb 11, 2012 at 10:14 pm

⇧

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan wrote:
Sure Stack. I will do it. Also let me see if any issues could go into the
next RC.
I probably think we have another one or two in store.

I committed hbase-5363 to 0.90 Ram so you should be good to go w/ a new RC.
Thanks boss,
St.Ack

reply | permalink

Jonathan Hsieh

at Feb 11, 2012 at 2:02 am

⇧

Hey guys,

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:

This one needs a review:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363 (takes 0.92 and trunk as
well)
These have been committed:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5377
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

Jon.

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

reply | permalink

group	dev @
categories	hbase, hadoop
posted	Feb 5, '12 at 6:42a
active	Feb 11, '12 at 10:14p
posts	19
users	5
website	hbase.apache.org

responses	expanded	Hotkey: s
font	variable	Hotkey: f
user style	avatars	Hotkey: a

[HBase-dev] ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

Search Discussions

Related Discussions

5 users in discussion