You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@streams.apache.org by Jason Letourneau <jl...@gmail.com> on 2013/01/09 16:39:13 UTC
[DISCUSS] Streams Master 0.1-incubating Release
Discussion thread for .1-incubating release of streams master POM
Re: [DISCUSS] Streams Master 0.1-incubating Release
Posted by Jason Letourneau <jl...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Ate - I will make sure these are tracked issues in Jira for a .2 release
Jason
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu> wrote:
> On 01/09/2013 04:39 PM, Jason Letourneau wrote:
>>
>> Discussion thread for .1-incubating release of streams master POM
>>
> Minor nit, the RELEASE NOTES still refers to the 1.0 release :)
>
> Another, even more minor and more of a personal preference/annoyance:
> I dislike file/folder names with spaces which force me to enquote them.
> Can we maybe rename "RELEASE NOTES" to RELEASE_NOTES?
>
> Regardless the above, I'm +1 on this release.
>
> Thanks, Ate
Re: [DISCUSS] Streams Master 0.1-incubating Release
Posted by Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>.
On 01/09/2013 04:39 PM, Jason Letourneau wrote:
> Discussion thread for .1-incubating release of streams master POM
>
Minor nit, the RELEASE NOTES still refers to the 1.0 release :)
Another, even more minor and more of a personal preference/annoyance:
I dislike file/folder names with spaces which force me to enquote them.
Can we maybe rename "RELEASE NOTES" to RELEASE_NOTES?
Regardless the above, I'm +1 on this release.
Thanks, Ate
Re: [DISCUSS] Streams Master 0.1-incubating Release
Posted by Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Jason Letourneau
<jl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So i most certainly messed this up a bit by releasing from the staging
> repo prior to the IPMC vote...as Matt stated though we have the IPMC
> votes in our group, so hopefully this clunky first release won't be
> noticed too much...my thoughts are that starting the VOTE on general
> would be appropriate now and to identify that this misstep has
> occurred...any thoughts to the contrary? Or suggestions for a way
> forward?
Replied in my other e-mail. I would send an e-mail to general asking
for guidance. Note that it was a mistake and that you realize the
IPMC as a whole needs to vote; but in this case you do have 4 +1s from
IPMC members.
>
> Jason
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Jason Letourneau
> <jl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A question on process. As I understand, in the nexus repo I am
>> supposed to release the binary as a result of our vote at this time,
>> but upon re-reading your post - I am to wait and put the closed repo
>> up for vote in the staging area?
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Jason Letourneau
>>> <jl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Discussion thread for .1-incubating release of streams master POM
>>>
>>> Since we are nearing the end of the vote and we are still on track, I
>>> just wanted to remind everyone that while in the incubator, a release
>>> has two VOTES to go through. The first vote is within the project dev
>>> list and requires 3 PPMC members to cast +1 in order to move on. Upon
>>> success of the first vote, the second will take place on the
>>> general@incubator.a.o list and requires 3 IPMC +1s for release.
>>>
>>> The good thing about having 3 or more mentors on an incubator project
>>> is that each is also an IPMC member. This means that a successful DEV
>>> list vote with 3 or more mentors casting a +1 only needs to go for a
>>> lazy consensus vote to the IPMC. You can look through the general
>>> list archives to see how this has worked in the past.
>>>
>>> -Matt
Re: [DISCUSS] Streams Master 0.1-incubating Release
Posted by Jason Letourneau <jl...@gmail.com>.
So i most certainly messed this up a bit by releasing from the staging
repo prior to the IPMC vote...as Matt stated though we have the IPMC
votes in our group, so hopefully this clunky first release won't be
noticed too much...my thoughts are that starting the VOTE on general
would be appropriate now and to identify that this misstep has
occurred...any thoughts to the contrary? Or suggestions for a way
forward?
Jason
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Jason Letourneau
<jl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A question on process. As I understand, in the nexus repo I am
> supposed to release the binary as a result of our vote at this time,
> but upon re-reading your post - I am to wait and put the closed repo
> up for vote in the staging area?
>
> Jason
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Jason Letourneau
>> <jl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Discussion thread for .1-incubating release of streams master POM
>>
>> Since we are nearing the end of the vote and we are still on track, I
>> just wanted to remind everyone that while in the incubator, a release
>> has two VOTES to go through. The first vote is within the project dev
>> list and requires 3 PPMC members to cast +1 in order to move on. Upon
>> success of the first vote, the second will take place on the
>> general@incubator.a.o list and requires 3 IPMC +1s for release.
>>
>> The good thing about having 3 or more mentors on an incubator project
>> is that each is also an IPMC member. This means that a successful DEV
>> list vote with 3 or more mentors casting a +1 only needs to go for a
>> lazy consensus vote to the IPMC. You can look through the general
>> list archives to see how this has worked in the past.
>>
>> -Matt
Re: [DISCUSS] Streams Master 0.1-incubating Release
Posted by Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Jason Letourneau
<jl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A question on process. As I understand, in the nexus repo I am
> supposed to release the binary as a result of our vote at this time,
> but upon re-reading your post - I am to wait and put the closed repo
> up for vote in the staging area?
Nothing should be promoted in the Nexus staging repository until after
the IPMC vote has concluded. In the incubator, only the IPMC can
officially release code. The PPMC release vote is to train the
community on the proper processes & procedures for release.
There are also two parts to a release that uses Maven, the repository
release in Nexus and the source archive that needs to be put on
http://www.apache.org/dist so that it gets mirrored.
I see that you released it already in Nexus. Since the whole IPMC has
not had the opportunity to vote on the release, this is not great. I
am pretty sure we can ask INFRA to drop the release, but given you
have 4 +1s, I would recommend sending and e-mail to the IPMC
(general@incubator.a.o) asking for what should be done about the Nexus
artifacts that have accidentally been released. Maybe the other
mentors will have better history and process for this than I.
>
> Jason
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Jason Letourneau
>> <jl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Discussion thread for .1-incubating release of streams master POM
>>
>> Since we are nearing the end of the vote and we are still on track, I
>> just wanted to remind everyone that while in the incubator, a release
>> has two VOTES to go through. The first vote is within the project dev
>> list and requires 3 PPMC members to cast +1 in order to move on. Upon
>> success of the first vote, the second will take place on the
>> general@incubator.a.o list and requires 3 IPMC +1s for release.
>>
>> The good thing about having 3 or more mentors on an incubator project
>> is that each is also an IPMC member. This means that a successful DEV
>> list vote with 3 or more mentors casting a +1 only needs to go for a
>> lazy consensus vote to the IPMC. You can look through the general
>> list archives to see how this has worked in the past.
>>
>> -Matt
Re: [DISCUSS] Streams Master 0.1-incubating Release
Posted by Jason Letourneau <jl...@gmail.com>.
A question on process. As I understand, in the nexus repo I am
supposed to release the binary as a result of our vote at this time,
but upon re-reading your post - I am to wait and put the closed repo
up for vote in the staging area?
Jason
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Jason Letourneau
> <jl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Discussion thread for .1-incubating release of streams master POM
>
> Since we are nearing the end of the vote and we are still on track, I
> just wanted to remind everyone that while in the incubator, a release
> has two VOTES to go through. The first vote is within the project dev
> list and requires 3 PPMC members to cast +1 in order to move on. Upon
> success of the first vote, the second will take place on the
> general@incubator.a.o list and requires 3 IPMC +1s for release.
>
> The good thing about having 3 or more mentors on an incubator project
> is that each is also an IPMC member. This means that a successful DEV
> list vote with 3 or more mentors casting a +1 only needs to go for a
> lazy consensus vote to the IPMC. You can look through the general
> list archives to see how this has worked in the past.
>
> -Matt
Re: [DISCUSS] Streams Master 0.1-incubating Release
Posted by Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Jason Letourneau
<jl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Discussion thread for .1-incubating release of streams master POM
Since we are nearing the end of the vote and we are still on track, I
just wanted to remind everyone that while in the incubator, a release
has two VOTES to go through. The first vote is within the project dev
list and requires 3 PPMC members to cast +1 in order to move on. Upon
success of the first vote, the second will take place on the
general@incubator.a.o list and requires 3 IPMC +1s for release.
The good thing about having 3 or more mentors on an incubator project
is that each is also an IPMC member. This means that a successful DEV
list vote with 3 or more mentors casting a +1 only needs to go for a
lazy consensus vote to the IPMC. You can look through the general
list archives to see how this has worked in the past.
-Matt