FAQ
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 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

Search Discussions

  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupdev @
categorieshbase, hadoop
postedFeb 5, '12 at 6:42a
activeFeb 11, '12 at 10:14p
posts19
users5
websitehbase.apache.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase