You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Mayank Bansal <ma...@apache.org> on 2012/02/17 20:59:29 UTC

Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)

+1

looks good.

Thanks,
Mayank

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Chris,
> > So can the other contributors/committers VOTE now?
>
> Yes
>
> > As oozie-user VOTE is already closed, what would be the best option at
> this stage?
> > 1. Go to genenral@incubator and vote there.
> > 2. Vote in the same threadat oozie-user
>
> Might as well show support/express reservations on the
> general@incubator thread so it's in one place. IIRC the general@
> thread cc'd oozie-dev. -C
>
> > Regards,
> > Mohammad
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
> > To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc: Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>; "
> oozie-users@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:13 PM
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
> >
> > That's a pretty dire error in the documentation if that's the
> > impression. Projects (and podlings) are responsible for their code,
> > community, and releases. The PPMC certifies that the artifact
> > represents an iteration of its progress by voting on a release in some
> > series, just as a PMC does.
> >
> > The IPMC has a functionary, mundane role. It's supposed to make
> > cursory checks: code being released respects the licensing
> > requirements of dependencies, notices give accurate guidance to
> > downstream consumers of that code, etc. Since the ASF is releasing
> > that code under license, the idea is that IPMC members protect the
> > foundation from common misunderstandings (e.g. if a podling thought
> > they could release GPL'd code, someone else's code, etc.).
> >
> > Once the project has some experience with releases, a clear
> > understanding of what the ASF wants w.r.t. community, etc. then
> > podling graduates. Before that, the voting guidelines are necessary
> > because the IPMC members are acting on behalf of the foundation. The
> > vote from the PPMC expresses that the artifact represents their
> > output. The vote from the IPMC certifies that the artifact won't get
> > the ASF into legal trouble.
> >
> > Release votes are a strict majority per ASF bylaws. AFAICT, asserting
> > that the IPMC votes are the only ones that are binding in the second
> > round is just adding a layer of indirection to solve a counting
> > problem. -C
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur <tu...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >> Chris,
> >>
> >> I'm a bit confused here, I've thought that the significant votes where
> from
> >> the IPMC.
> >>
> >> I guess most of the committers/contributors thought along the same
> lines.
> >>
> >> Thxs.
> >>
> >> Alejandro
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The vote didn't attract any votes from contributors. As far as I know,
> >>> none of the voters in this thread actually develop Oozie.
> >>>
> >>> The IPMC vote is a check on the podling's compliance with licensing
> >>> and other foundation-level practices. It's far, far less significant
> >>> than the community's appraisal of the release itself. Would the PPMC
> >>> please weigh in? -C
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > Hi All,
> >>> > As 72 hours has passed, I would like to close the vote.
> >>> > The proposed RC-2 got three +1s from three mentors without -1 or 0.
> >>> >
> >>> > Special thanks to mentors who gave their valuable feedback to make it
> >>> better.
> >>> > I also want to mention Alejandro and Virag who helped to make the
> whole
> >>> process smoother.
> >>> > Now I will ask for vote in general@incubator
> >>> >
> >>> > Regards,
> >>> > Moahmmad
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > ________________________________
> >>> > From: Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>
> >>> > To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>> > Cc: Oozie-users <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
> >>> > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:42 PM
> >>> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
> >>> >
> >>> > I ran the tests and also inspected the top level txt files. Looks
> good.
> >>> >
> >>> > +1 for the release.
> >>> >
> >>> > On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Mohammad Islam wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Hi,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Thanks everyone for giving valuable comments for the RC0 and RC1.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I created a new candidate (RC2) build for Oozie-3.1.3 incorporating
> >>> most of the comments (including Chris's finding).
> >>> >> The following JIRAs were resolved based on the comments:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> OOZIE-694 Update the Install and Quick start guide with appropriate
> >>> hadoop versions for branch-3.1 (Mohammad)
> >>> >> OOZIE-602 Update the Hadoop version to be an Apache Hadoop version
> >>> (tucu)
> >>> >> OOZIE-689 XTestCase proxyuser settings fails with Hadoop
> 1.0.0/0.23.1
> >>> (tucu)
> >>> >> OOZIE-601 Oozie's POMs should use org.apache.oozie as group (tucu)
> >>> >> OOZIE-685 Update License file with 3rd party license information.
> >>> (Mohammad)
> >>> >> OOZIE-682 Update version 3.1.3 to 3.1.3-incubating in all
> >>> pom.xml.(Mohammad)
> >>> >> OOZIE-683 Add DISCLAIMER file in the root.(Mohammad)
> >>> >> OOZIE-681 Update readme.txt contents.(Mohammad)
> >>> >> OOZIE-680 oozie's assembly creates an extra level of empty
> subdirectory
> >>> for docs. (rvs via tucu)
> >>> >> OOZIE-608 testCoordChangeEndTime and testCoordChangeXCommand are
> >>> failing(Mohamed).
> >>> >> OOZIE-678 Update NOTICE.txt to reflect the workcount binaries into
> >>> oozie src(Mohammad)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Keys used to sign the release are available at
> >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/oozie/trunk/KEYS?view=markup.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Please download, test, and try it out from here:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> http://people.apache.org/~kamrul/oozie-3.1.3-incubating-candidate-2/
> >>> >>
> >>> >> The release log, md5 signature, gpg signature, and rat report all
> can
> >>> be found at the above link.
> >>> >> In case, anyone is interested, the svn tag from the release was
> created
> >>> could be found at :
> >>> >>
> >>>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/oozie/tags/release-3.1.3-rc2/
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Should we release this? Vote closes on Feb 15th.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Regards,
> >>> >> Mohammad
> >>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)

Posted by Mohamed Battisha <mb...@live.com>.
+1
Downloaded the source and ran the unit tests

Things look fine 

Thanks!
Mohamed

On Feb 17, 2012, at 11:59 AM, Mayank Bansal wrote:

> +1
> 
> looks good.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mayank
> 
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Chris,
>>> So can the other contributors/committers VOTE now?
>> 
>> Yes
>> 
>>> As oozie-user VOTE is already closed, what would be the best option at
>> this stage?
>>> 1. Go to genenral@incubator and vote there.
>>> 2. Vote in the same threadat oozie-user
>> 
>> Might as well show support/express reservations on the
>> general@incubator thread so it's in one place. IIRC the general@
>> thread cc'd oozie-dev. -C
>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Mohammad
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc: Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>; "
>> oozie-users@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:13 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>> 
>>> That's a pretty dire error in the documentation if that's the
>>> impression. Projects (and podlings) are responsible for their code,
>>> community, and releases. The PPMC certifies that the artifact
>>> represents an iteration of its progress by voting on a release in some
>>> series, just as a PMC does.
>>> 
>>> The IPMC has a functionary, mundane role. It's supposed to make
>>> cursory checks: code being released respects the licensing
>>> requirements of dependencies, notices give accurate guidance to
>>> downstream consumers of that code, etc. Since the ASF is releasing
>>> that code under license, the idea is that IPMC members protect the
>>> foundation from common misunderstandings (e.g. if a podling thought
>>> they could release GPL'd code, someone else's code, etc.).
>>> 
>>> Once the project has some experience with releases, a clear
>>> understanding of what the ASF wants w.r.t. community, etc. then
>>> podling graduates. Before that, the voting guidelines are necessary
>>> because the IPMC members are acting on behalf of the foundation. The
>>> vote from the PPMC expresses that the artifact represents their
>>> output. The vote from the IPMC certifies that the artifact won't get
>>> the ASF into legal trouble.
>>> 
>>> Release votes are a strict majority per ASF bylaws. AFAICT, asserting
>>> that the IPMC votes are the only ones that are binding in the second
>>> round is just adding a layer of indirection to solve a counting
>>> problem. -C
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur <tu...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> Chris,
>>>> 
>>>> I'm a bit confused here, I've thought that the significant votes where
>> from
>>>> the IPMC.
>>>> 
>>>> I guess most of the committers/contributors thought along the same
>> lines.
>>>> 
>>>> Thxs.
>>>> 
>>>> Alejandro
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The vote didn't attract any votes from contributors. As far as I know,
>>>>> none of the voters in this thread actually develop Oozie.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The IPMC vote is a check on the podling's compliance with licensing
>>>>> and other foundation-level practices. It's far, far less significant
>>>>> than the community's appraisal of the release itself. Would the PPMC
>>>>> please weigh in? -C
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>> As 72 hours has passed, I would like to close the vote.
>>>>>> The proposed RC-2 got three +1s from three mentors without -1 or 0.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Special thanks to mentors who gave their valuable feedback to make it
>>>>> better.
>>>>>> I also want to mention Alejandro and Virag who helped to make the
>> whole
>>>>> process smoother.
>>>>>> Now I will ask for vote in general@incubator
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Moahmmad
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> From: Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>
>>>>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Cc: Oozie-users <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:42 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I ran the tests and also inspected the top level txt files. Looks
>> good.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +1 for the release.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Mohammad Islam wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks everyone for giving valuable comments for the RC0 and RC1.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I created a new candidate (RC2) build for Oozie-3.1.3 incorporating
>>>>> most of the comments (including Chris's finding).
>>>>>>> The following JIRAs were resolved based on the comments:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> OOZIE-694 Update the Install and Quick start guide with appropriate
>>>>> hadoop versions for branch-3.1 (Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-602 Update the Hadoop version to be an Apache Hadoop version
>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-689 XTestCase proxyuser settings fails with Hadoop
>> 1.0.0/0.23.1
>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-601 Oozie's POMs should use org.apache.oozie as group (tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-685 Update License file with 3rd party license information.
>>>>> (Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-682 Update version 3.1.3 to 3.1.3-incubating in all
>>>>> pom.xml.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-683 Add DISCLAIMER file in the root.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-681 Update readme.txt contents.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-680 oozie's assembly creates an extra level of empty
>> subdirectory
>>>>> for docs. (rvs via tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-608 testCoordChangeEndTime and testCoordChangeXCommand are
>>>>> failing(Mohamed).
>>>>>>> OOZIE-678 Update NOTICE.txt to reflect the workcount binaries into
>>>>> oozie src(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Keys used to sign the release are available at
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/oozie/trunk/KEYS?view=markup.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please download, test, and try it out from here:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> http://people.apache.org/~kamrul/oozie-3.1.3-incubating-candidate-2/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The release log, md5 signature, gpg signature, and rat report all
>> can
>>>>> be found at the above link.
>>>>>>> In case, anyone is interested, the svn tag from the release was
>> created
>>>>> could be found at :
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/oozie/tags/release-3.1.3-rc2/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Should we release this? Vote closes on Feb 15th.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Mohammad
>>>>> 
>> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)

Posted by Thiruvel Thirumoolan <th...@yahoo-inc.com>.
+1 (non-binding from a user).

Downloaded sources and ran bin/mkdistro.sh 2 times. All tests went through
fine no my RHEL 5.x
Deployed the distro using oozie-setup.sh on a single node un-secure Hadoop
20.205 cluster and launched a co-ordinator with about 20+ workflows. All
workflows completed as expected.

Thanks for all the hard work,

-Thiruvel

On 2/20/12 3:19 AM, "Mohamed Battisha" <mb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>+1
>Downloaded the source and ran the unit test
>
>Everything looks fine
>
>Thanks!
>Mohamed
>
>On Feb 18, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Jeremy Hanna wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding from a user/contributor) - pulled down the artifacts
>>and did the maven tests on them.  Got it to complete, but on one of the
>>test runs I got test failures for TestPauseTransitService and
>>TestSshActionExecutor.  I think those may need to just be looked at for
>>completion consistency and not anything to do with the code their
>>testing.
>> 
>> On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Mayank Bansal wrote:
>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> looks good.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mayank
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>>>wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>> So can the other contributors/committers VOTE now?
>>>> 
>>>> Yes
>>>> 
>>>>> As oozie-user VOTE is already closed, what would be the best option
>>>>>at
>>>> this stage?
>>>>> 1. Go to genenral@incubator and vote there.
>>>>> 2. Vote in the same threadat oozie-user
>>>> 
>>>> Might as well show support/express reservations on the
>>>> general@incubator thread so it's in one place. IIRC the general@
>>>> thread cc'd oozie-dev. -C
>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Mohammad
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>>>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Cc: Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>; "
>>>> oozie-users@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:13 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's a pretty dire error in the documentation if that's the
>>>>> impression. Projects (and podlings) are responsible for their code,
>>>>> community, and releases. The PPMC certifies that the artifact
>>>>> represents an iteration of its progress by voting on a release in
>>>>>some
>>>>> series, just as a PMC does.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The IPMC has a functionary, mundane role. It's supposed to make
>>>>> cursory checks: code being released respects the licensing
>>>>> requirements of dependencies, notices give accurate guidance to
>>>>> downstream consumers of that code, etc. Since the ASF is releasing
>>>>> that code under license, the idea is that IPMC members protect the
>>>>> foundation from common misunderstandings (e.g. if a podling thought
>>>>> they could release GPL'd code, someone else's code, etc.).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Once the project has some experience with releases, a clear
>>>>> understanding of what the ASF wants w.r.t. community, etc. then
>>>>> podling graduates. Before that, the voting guidelines are necessary
>>>>> because the IPMC members are acting on behalf of the foundation. The
>>>>> vote from the PPMC expresses that the artifact represents their
>>>>> output. The vote from the IPMC certifies that the artifact won't get
>>>>> the ASF into legal trouble.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Release votes are a strict majority per ASF bylaws. AFAICT, asserting
>>>>> that the IPMC votes are the only ones that are binding in the second
>>>>> round is just adding a layer of indirection to solve a counting
>>>>> problem. -C
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur
>>>>><tu...@cloudera.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Chris,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm a bit confused here, I've thought that the significant votes
>>>>>>where
>>>> from
>>>>>> the IPMC.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I guess most of the committers/contributors thought along the same
>>>> lines.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thxs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Alejandro
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The vote didn't attract any votes from contributors. As far as I
>>>>>>>know,
>>>>>>> none of the voters in this thread actually develop Oozie.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The IPMC vote is a check on the podling's compliance with licensing
>>>>>>> and other foundation-level practices. It's far, far less
>>>>>>>significant
>>>>>>> than the community's appraisal of the release itself. Would the
>>>>>>>PPMC
>>>>>>> please weigh in? -C
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Mohammad Islam
>>>>>>><mi...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>> As 72 hours has passed, I would like to close the vote.
>>>>>>>> The proposed RC-2 got three +1s from three mentors without -1 or
>>>>>>>>0.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Special thanks to mentors who gave their valuable feedback to
>>>>>>>>make it
>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>> I also want to mention Alejandro and Virag who helped to make the
>>>> whole
>>>>>>> process smoother.
>>>>>>>> Now I will ask for vote in general@incubator
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Moahmmad
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>> From: Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>
>>>>>>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>> Cc: Oozie-users <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:42 PM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I ran the tests and also inspected the top level txt files. Looks
>>>> good.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> +1 for the release.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Mohammad Islam wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks everyone for giving valuable comments for the RC0 and RC1.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I created a new candidate (RC2) build for Oozie-3.1.3
>>>>>>>>>incorporating
>>>>>>> most of the comments (including Chris's finding).
>>>>>>>>> The following JIRAs were resolved based on the comments:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-694 Update the Install and Quick start guide with
>>>>>>>>>appropriate
>>>>>>> hadoop versions for branch-3.1 (Mohammad)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-602 Update the Hadoop version to be an Apache Hadoop
>>>>>>>>>version
>>>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-689 XTestCase proxyuser settings fails with Hadoop
>>>> 1.0.0/0.23.1
>>>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-601 Oozie's POMs should use org.apache.oozie as group
>>>>>>>>>(tucu)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-685 Update License file with 3rd party license information.
>>>>>>> (Mohammad)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-682 Update version 3.1.3 to 3.1.3-incubating in all
>>>>>>> pom.xml.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-683 Add DISCLAIMER file in the root.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-681 Update readme.txt contents.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-680 oozie's assembly creates an extra level of empty
>>>> subdirectory
>>>>>>> for docs. (rvs via tucu)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-608 testCoordChangeEndTime and testCoordChangeXCommand are
>>>>>>> failing(Mohamed).
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-678 Update NOTICE.txt to reflect the workcount binaries
>>>>>>>>>into
>>>>>>> oozie src(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Keys used to sign the release are available at
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/oozie/trunk/KEYS?view=markup.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Please download, test, and try it out from here:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~kamrul/oozie-3.1.3-incubating-candidate-2/
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The release log, md5 signature, gpg signature, and rat report all
>>>> can
>>>>>>> be found at the above link.
>>>>>>>>> In case, anyone is interested, the svn tag from the release was
>>>> created
>>>>>>> could be found at :
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/oozie/tags/release-3.1.3-rc2
>>>>/
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Should we release this? Vote closes on Feb 15th.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Mohammad
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)

Posted by Thiruvel Thirumoolan <th...@yahoo-inc.com>.
+1 (non-binding from a user).

Downloaded sources and ran bin/mkdistro.sh 2 times. All tests went through
fine no my RHEL 5.x
Deployed the distro using oozie-setup.sh on a single node un-secure Hadoop
20.205 cluster and launched a co-ordinator with about 20+ workflows. All
workflows completed as expected.

Thanks for all the hard work,

-Thiruvel

On 2/20/12 3:19 AM, "Mohamed Battisha" <mb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>+1
>Downloaded the source and ran the unit test
>
>Everything looks fine
>
>Thanks!
>Mohamed
>
>On Feb 18, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Jeremy Hanna wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding from a user/contributor) - pulled down the artifacts
>>and did the maven tests on them.  Got it to complete, but on one of the
>>test runs I got test failures for TestPauseTransitService and
>>TestSshActionExecutor.  I think those may need to just be looked at for
>>completion consistency and not anything to do with the code their
>>testing.
>> 
>> On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Mayank Bansal wrote:
>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> looks good.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mayank
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>>>wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>> So can the other contributors/committers VOTE now?
>>>> 
>>>> Yes
>>>> 
>>>>> As oozie-user VOTE is already closed, what would be the best option
>>>>>at
>>>> this stage?
>>>>> 1. Go to genenral@incubator and vote there.
>>>>> 2. Vote in the same threadat oozie-user
>>>> 
>>>> Might as well show support/express reservations on the
>>>> general@incubator thread so it's in one place. IIRC the general@
>>>> thread cc'd oozie-dev. -C
>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Mohammad
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>>>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Cc: Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>; "
>>>> oozie-users@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:13 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's a pretty dire error in the documentation if that's the
>>>>> impression. Projects (and podlings) are responsible for their code,
>>>>> community, and releases. The PPMC certifies that the artifact
>>>>> represents an iteration of its progress by voting on a release in
>>>>>some
>>>>> series, just as a PMC does.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The IPMC has a functionary, mundane role. It's supposed to make
>>>>> cursory checks: code being released respects the licensing
>>>>> requirements of dependencies, notices give accurate guidance to
>>>>> downstream consumers of that code, etc. Since the ASF is releasing
>>>>> that code under license, the idea is that IPMC members protect the
>>>>> foundation from common misunderstandings (e.g. if a podling thought
>>>>> they could release GPL'd code, someone else's code, etc.).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Once the project has some experience with releases, a clear
>>>>> understanding of what the ASF wants w.r.t. community, etc. then
>>>>> podling graduates. Before that, the voting guidelines are necessary
>>>>> because the IPMC members are acting on behalf of the foundation. The
>>>>> vote from the PPMC expresses that the artifact represents their
>>>>> output. The vote from the IPMC certifies that the artifact won't get
>>>>> the ASF into legal trouble.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Release votes are a strict majority per ASF bylaws. AFAICT, asserting
>>>>> that the IPMC votes are the only ones that are binding in the second
>>>>> round is just adding a layer of indirection to solve a counting
>>>>> problem. -C
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur
>>>>><tu...@cloudera.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Chris,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm a bit confused here, I've thought that the significant votes
>>>>>>where
>>>> from
>>>>>> the IPMC.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I guess most of the committers/contributors thought along the same
>>>> lines.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thxs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Alejandro
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The vote didn't attract any votes from contributors. As far as I
>>>>>>>know,
>>>>>>> none of the voters in this thread actually develop Oozie.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The IPMC vote is a check on the podling's compliance with licensing
>>>>>>> and other foundation-level practices. It's far, far less
>>>>>>>significant
>>>>>>> than the community's appraisal of the release itself. Would the
>>>>>>>PPMC
>>>>>>> please weigh in? -C
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Mohammad Islam
>>>>>>><mi...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>> As 72 hours has passed, I would like to close the vote.
>>>>>>>> The proposed RC-2 got three +1s from three mentors without -1 or
>>>>>>>>0.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Special thanks to mentors who gave their valuable feedback to
>>>>>>>>make it
>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>> I also want to mention Alejandro and Virag who helped to make the
>>>> whole
>>>>>>> process smoother.
>>>>>>>> Now I will ask for vote in general@incubator
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Moahmmad
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>> From: Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>
>>>>>>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>> Cc: Oozie-users <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:42 PM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I ran the tests and also inspected the top level txt files. Looks
>>>> good.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> +1 for the release.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Mohammad Islam wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks everyone for giving valuable comments for the RC0 and RC1.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I created a new candidate (RC2) build for Oozie-3.1.3
>>>>>>>>>incorporating
>>>>>>> most of the comments (including Chris's finding).
>>>>>>>>> The following JIRAs were resolved based on the comments:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-694 Update the Install and Quick start guide with
>>>>>>>>>appropriate
>>>>>>> hadoop versions for branch-3.1 (Mohammad)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-602 Update the Hadoop version to be an Apache Hadoop
>>>>>>>>>version
>>>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-689 XTestCase proxyuser settings fails with Hadoop
>>>> 1.0.0/0.23.1
>>>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-601 Oozie's POMs should use org.apache.oozie as group
>>>>>>>>>(tucu)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-685 Update License file with 3rd party license information.
>>>>>>> (Mohammad)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-682 Update version 3.1.3 to 3.1.3-incubating in all
>>>>>>> pom.xml.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-683 Add DISCLAIMER file in the root.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-681 Update readme.txt contents.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-680 oozie's assembly creates an extra level of empty
>>>> subdirectory
>>>>>>> for docs. (rvs via tucu)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-608 testCoordChangeEndTime and testCoordChangeXCommand are
>>>>>>> failing(Mohamed).
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-678 Update NOTICE.txt to reflect the workcount binaries
>>>>>>>>>into
>>>>>>> oozie src(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Keys used to sign the release are available at
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/oozie/trunk/KEYS?view=markup.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Please download, test, and try it out from here:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~kamrul/oozie-3.1.3-incubating-candidate-2/
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The release log, md5 signature, gpg signature, and rat report all
>>>> can
>>>>>>> be found at the above link.
>>>>>>>>> In case, anyone is interested, the svn tag from the release was
>>>> created
>>>>>>> could be found at :
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/oozie/tags/release-3.1.3-rc2
>>>>/
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Should we release this? Vote closes on Feb 15th.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Mohammad
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)

Posted by Thiruvel Thirumoolan <th...@yahoo-inc.com>.
+1 (non-binding from a user).

Downloaded sources and ran bin/mkdistro.sh 2 times. All tests went through
fine no my RHEL 5.x
Deployed the distro using oozie-setup.sh on a single node un-secure Hadoop
20.205 cluster and launched a co-ordinator with about 20+ workflows. All
workflows completed as expected.

Thanks for all the hard work,

-Thiruvel

On 2/20/12 3:19 AM, "Mohamed Battisha" <mb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>+1
>Downloaded the source and ran the unit test
>
>Everything looks fine
>
>Thanks!
>Mohamed
>
>On Feb 18, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Jeremy Hanna wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding from a user/contributor) - pulled down the artifacts
>>and did the maven tests on them.  Got it to complete, but on one of the
>>test runs I got test failures for TestPauseTransitService and
>>TestSshActionExecutor.  I think those may need to just be looked at for
>>completion consistency and not anything to do with the code their
>>testing.
>> 
>> On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Mayank Bansal wrote:
>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> looks good.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mayank
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>>>wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>> So can the other contributors/committers VOTE now?
>>>> 
>>>> Yes
>>>> 
>>>>> As oozie-user VOTE is already closed, what would be the best option
>>>>>at
>>>> this stage?
>>>>> 1. Go to genenral@incubator and vote there.
>>>>> 2. Vote in the same threadat oozie-user
>>>> 
>>>> Might as well show support/express reservations on the
>>>> general@incubator thread so it's in one place. IIRC the general@
>>>> thread cc'd oozie-dev. -C
>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Mohammad
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>>>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Cc: Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>; "
>>>> oozie-users@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:13 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's a pretty dire error in the documentation if that's the
>>>>> impression. Projects (and podlings) are responsible for their code,
>>>>> community, and releases. The PPMC certifies that the artifact
>>>>> represents an iteration of its progress by voting on a release in
>>>>>some
>>>>> series, just as a PMC does.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The IPMC has a functionary, mundane role. It's supposed to make
>>>>> cursory checks: code being released respects the licensing
>>>>> requirements of dependencies, notices give accurate guidance to
>>>>> downstream consumers of that code, etc. Since the ASF is releasing
>>>>> that code under license, the idea is that IPMC members protect the
>>>>> foundation from common misunderstandings (e.g. if a podling thought
>>>>> they could release GPL'd code, someone else's code, etc.).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Once the project has some experience with releases, a clear
>>>>> understanding of what the ASF wants w.r.t. community, etc. then
>>>>> podling graduates. Before that, the voting guidelines are necessary
>>>>> because the IPMC members are acting on behalf of the foundation. The
>>>>> vote from the PPMC expresses that the artifact represents their
>>>>> output. The vote from the IPMC certifies that the artifact won't get
>>>>> the ASF into legal trouble.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Release votes are a strict majority per ASF bylaws. AFAICT, asserting
>>>>> that the IPMC votes are the only ones that are binding in the second
>>>>> round is just adding a layer of indirection to solve a counting
>>>>> problem. -C
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur
>>>>><tu...@cloudera.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Chris,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm a bit confused here, I've thought that the significant votes
>>>>>>where
>>>> from
>>>>>> the IPMC.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I guess most of the committers/contributors thought along the same
>>>> lines.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thxs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Alejandro
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The vote didn't attract any votes from contributors. As far as I
>>>>>>>know,
>>>>>>> none of the voters in this thread actually develop Oozie.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The IPMC vote is a check on the podling's compliance with licensing
>>>>>>> and other foundation-level practices. It's far, far less
>>>>>>>significant
>>>>>>> than the community's appraisal of the release itself. Would the
>>>>>>>PPMC
>>>>>>> please weigh in? -C
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Mohammad Islam
>>>>>>><mi...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>> As 72 hours has passed, I would like to close the vote.
>>>>>>>> The proposed RC-2 got three +1s from three mentors without -1 or
>>>>>>>>0.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Special thanks to mentors who gave their valuable feedback to
>>>>>>>>make it
>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>> I also want to mention Alejandro and Virag who helped to make the
>>>> whole
>>>>>>> process smoother.
>>>>>>>> Now I will ask for vote in general@incubator
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Moahmmad
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>> From: Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>
>>>>>>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>> Cc: Oozie-users <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:42 PM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I ran the tests and also inspected the top level txt files. Looks
>>>> good.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> +1 for the release.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Mohammad Islam wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks everyone for giving valuable comments for the RC0 and RC1.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I created a new candidate (RC2) build for Oozie-3.1.3
>>>>>>>>>incorporating
>>>>>>> most of the comments (including Chris's finding).
>>>>>>>>> The following JIRAs were resolved based on the comments:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-694 Update the Install and Quick start guide with
>>>>>>>>>appropriate
>>>>>>> hadoop versions for branch-3.1 (Mohammad)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-602 Update the Hadoop version to be an Apache Hadoop
>>>>>>>>>version
>>>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-689 XTestCase proxyuser settings fails with Hadoop
>>>> 1.0.0/0.23.1
>>>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-601 Oozie's POMs should use org.apache.oozie as group
>>>>>>>>>(tucu)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-685 Update License file with 3rd party license information.
>>>>>>> (Mohammad)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-682 Update version 3.1.3 to 3.1.3-incubating in all
>>>>>>> pom.xml.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-683 Add DISCLAIMER file in the root.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-681 Update readme.txt contents.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-680 oozie's assembly creates an extra level of empty
>>>> subdirectory
>>>>>>> for docs. (rvs via tucu)
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-608 testCoordChangeEndTime and testCoordChangeXCommand are
>>>>>>> failing(Mohamed).
>>>>>>>>> OOZIE-678 Update NOTICE.txt to reflect the workcount binaries
>>>>>>>>>into
>>>>>>> oozie src(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Keys used to sign the release are available at
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/oozie/trunk/KEYS?view=markup.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Please download, test, and try it out from here:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~kamrul/oozie-3.1.3-incubating-candidate-2/
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The release log, md5 signature, gpg signature, and rat report all
>>>> can
>>>>>>> be found at the above link.
>>>>>>>>> In case, anyone is interested, the svn tag from the release was
>>>> created
>>>>>>> could be found at :
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/oozie/tags/release-3.1.3-rc2
>>>>/
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Should we release this? Vote closes on Feb 15th.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Mohammad
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)

Posted by Mohamed Battisha <mb...@yahoo.com>.
+1
Downloaded the source and ran the unit test 

Everything looks fine 

Thanks!
Mohamed

On Feb 18, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Jeremy Hanna wrote:

> +1 (non-binding from a user/contributor) - pulled down the artifacts and did the maven tests on them.  Got it to complete, but on one of the test runs I got test failures for TestPauseTransitService and TestSshActionExecutor.  I think those may need to just be looked at for completion consistency and not anything to do with the code their testing.
> 
> On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Mayank Bansal wrote:
> 
>> +1
>> 
>> looks good.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Mayank
>> 
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>> So can the other contributors/committers VOTE now?
>>> 
>>> Yes
>>> 
>>>> As oozie-user VOTE is already closed, what would be the best option at
>>> this stage?
>>>> 1. Go to genenral@incubator and vote there.
>>>> 2. Vote in the same threadat oozie-user
>>> 
>>> Might as well show support/express reservations on the
>>> general@incubator thread so it's in one place. IIRC the general@
>>> thread cc'd oozie-dev. -C
>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Mohammad
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Cc: Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>; "
>>> oozie-users@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:13 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>>> 
>>>> That's a pretty dire error in the documentation if that's the
>>>> impression. Projects (and podlings) are responsible for their code,
>>>> community, and releases. The PPMC certifies that the artifact
>>>> represents an iteration of its progress by voting on a release in some
>>>> series, just as a PMC does.
>>>> 
>>>> The IPMC has a functionary, mundane role. It's supposed to make
>>>> cursory checks: code being released respects the licensing
>>>> requirements of dependencies, notices give accurate guidance to
>>>> downstream consumers of that code, etc. Since the ASF is releasing
>>>> that code under license, the idea is that IPMC members protect the
>>>> foundation from common misunderstandings (e.g. if a podling thought
>>>> they could release GPL'd code, someone else's code, etc.).
>>>> 
>>>> Once the project has some experience with releases, a clear
>>>> understanding of what the ASF wants w.r.t. community, etc. then
>>>> podling graduates. Before that, the voting guidelines are necessary
>>>> because the IPMC members are acting on behalf of the foundation. The
>>>> vote from the PPMC expresses that the artifact represents their
>>>> output. The vote from the IPMC certifies that the artifact won't get
>>>> the ASF into legal trouble.
>>>> 
>>>> Release votes are a strict majority per ASF bylaws. AFAICT, asserting
>>>> that the IPMC votes are the only ones that are binding in the second
>>>> round is just adding a layer of indirection to solve a counting
>>>> problem. -C
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur <tu...@cloudera.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Chris,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm a bit confused here, I've thought that the significant votes where
>>> from
>>>>> the IPMC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I guess most of the committers/contributors thought along the same
>>> lines.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thxs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Alejandro
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> The vote didn't attract any votes from contributors. As far as I know,
>>>>>> none of the voters in this thread actually develop Oozie.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The IPMC vote is a check on the podling's compliance with licensing
>>>>>> and other foundation-level practices. It's far, far less significant
>>>>>> than the community's appraisal of the release itself. Would the PPMC
>>>>>> please weigh in? -C
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>> As 72 hours has passed, I would like to close the vote.
>>>>>>> The proposed RC-2 got three +1s from three mentors without -1 or 0.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Special thanks to mentors who gave their valuable feedback to make it
>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>> I also want to mention Alejandro and Virag who helped to make the
>>> whole
>>>>>> process smoother.
>>>>>>> Now I will ask for vote in general@incubator
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Moahmmad
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>> From: Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>
>>>>>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>> Cc: Oozie-users <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:42 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I ran the tests and also inspected the top level txt files. Looks
>>> good.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> +1 for the release.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Mohammad Islam wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks everyone for giving valuable comments for the RC0 and RC1.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I created a new candidate (RC2) build for Oozie-3.1.3 incorporating
>>>>>> most of the comments (including Chris's finding).
>>>>>>>> The following JIRAs were resolved based on the comments:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-694 Update the Install and Quick start guide with appropriate
>>>>>> hadoop versions for branch-3.1 (Mohammad)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-602 Update the Hadoop version to be an Apache Hadoop version
>>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-689 XTestCase proxyuser settings fails with Hadoop
>>> 1.0.0/0.23.1
>>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-601 Oozie's POMs should use org.apache.oozie as group (tucu)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-685 Update License file with 3rd party license information.
>>>>>> (Mohammad)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-682 Update version 3.1.3 to 3.1.3-incubating in all
>>>>>> pom.xml.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-683 Add DISCLAIMER file in the root.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-681 Update readme.txt contents.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-680 oozie's assembly creates an extra level of empty
>>> subdirectory
>>>>>> for docs. (rvs via tucu)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-608 testCoordChangeEndTime and testCoordChangeXCommand are
>>>>>> failing(Mohamed).
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-678 Update NOTICE.txt to reflect the workcount binaries into
>>>>>> oozie src(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Keys used to sign the release are available at
>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/oozie/trunk/KEYS?view=markup.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Please download, test, and try it out from here:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>> http://people.apache.org/~kamrul/oozie-3.1.3-incubating-candidate-2/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The release log, md5 signature, gpg signature, and rat report all
>>> can
>>>>>> be found at the above link.
>>>>>>>> In case, anyone is interested, the svn tag from the release was
>>> created
>>>>>> could be found at :
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/oozie/tags/release-3.1.3-rc2/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Should we release this? Vote closes on Feb 15th.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Mohammad
>>>>>> 
>>> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)

Posted by Mohamed Battisha <mb...@yahoo.com>.
+1
Downloaded the source and ran the unit test 

Everything looks fine 

Thanks!
Mohamed

On Feb 18, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Jeremy Hanna wrote:

> +1 (non-binding from a user/contributor) - pulled down the artifacts and did the maven tests on them.  Got it to complete, but on one of the test runs I got test failures for TestPauseTransitService and TestSshActionExecutor.  I think those may need to just be looked at for completion consistency and not anything to do with the code their testing.
> 
> On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Mayank Bansal wrote:
> 
>> +1
>> 
>> looks good.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Mayank
>> 
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>> So can the other contributors/committers VOTE now?
>>> 
>>> Yes
>>> 
>>>> As oozie-user VOTE is already closed, what would be the best option at
>>> this stage?
>>>> 1. Go to genenral@incubator and vote there.
>>>> 2. Vote in the same threadat oozie-user
>>> 
>>> Might as well show support/express reservations on the
>>> general@incubator thread so it's in one place. IIRC the general@
>>> thread cc'd oozie-dev. -C
>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Mohammad
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Cc: Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>; "
>>> oozie-users@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:13 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>>> 
>>>> That's a pretty dire error in the documentation if that's the
>>>> impression. Projects (and podlings) are responsible for their code,
>>>> community, and releases. The PPMC certifies that the artifact
>>>> represents an iteration of its progress by voting on a release in some
>>>> series, just as a PMC does.
>>>> 
>>>> The IPMC has a functionary, mundane role. It's supposed to make
>>>> cursory checks: code being released respects the licensing
>>>> requirements of dependencies, notices give accurate guidance to
>>>> downstream consumers of that code, etc. Since the ASF is releasing
>>>> that code under license, the idea is that IPMC members protect the
>>>> foundation from common misunderstandings (e.g. if a podling thought
>>>> they could release GPL'd code, someone else's code, etc.).
>>>> 
>>>> Once the project has some experience with releases, a clear
>>>> understanding of what the ASF wants w.r.t. community, etc. then
>>>> podling graduates. Before that, the voting guidelines are necessary
>>>> because the IPMC members are acting on behalf of the foundation. The
>>>> vote from the PPMC expresses that the artifact represents their
>>>> output. The vote from the IPMC certifies that the artifact won't get
>>>> the ASF into legal trouble.
>>>> 
>>>> Release votes are a strict majority per ASF bylaws. AFAICT, asserting
>>>> that the IPMC votes are the only ones that are binding in the second
>>>> round is just adding a layer of indirection to solve a counting
>>>> problem. -C
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur <tu...@cloudera.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Chris,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm a bit confused here, I've thought that the significant votes where
>>> from
>>>>> the IPMC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I guess most of the committers/contributors thought along the same
>>> lines.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thxs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Alejandro
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> The vote didn't attract any votes from contributors. As far as I know,
>>>>>> none of the voters in this thread actually develop Oozie.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The IPMC vote is a check on the podling's compliance with licensing
>>>>>> and other foundation-level practices. It's far, far less significant
>>>>>> than the community's appraisal of the release itself. Would the PPMC
>>>>>> please weigh in? -C
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>> As 72 hours has passed, I would like to close the vote.
>>>>>>> The proposed RC-2 got three +1s from three mentors without -1 or 0.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Special thanks to mentors who gave their valuable feedback to make it
>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>> I also want to mention Alejandro and Virag who helped to make the
>>> whole
>>>>>> process smoother.
>>>>>>> Now I will ask for vote in general@incubator
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Moahmmad
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>> From: Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>
>>>>>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>> Cc: Oozie-users <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:42 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I ran the tests and also inspected the top level txt files. Looks
>>> good.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> +1 for the release.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Mohammad Islam wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks everyone for giving valuable comments for the RC0 and RC1.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I created a new candidate (RC2) build for Oozie-3.1.3 incorporating
>>>>>> most of the comments (including Chris's finding).
>>>>>>>> The following JIRAs were resolved based on the comments:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-694 Update the Install and Quick start guide with appropriate
>>>>>> hadoop versions for branch-3.1 (Mohammad)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-602 Update the Hadoop version to be an Apache Hadoop version
>>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-689 XTestCase proxyuser settings fails with Hadoop
>>> 1.0.0/0.23.1
>>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-601 Oozie's POMs should use org.apache.oozie as group (tucu)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-685 Update License file with 3rd party license information.
>>>>>> (Mohammad)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-682 Update version 3.1.3 to 3.1.3-incubating in all
>>>>>> pom.xml.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-683 Add DISCLAIMER file in the root.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-681 Update readme.txt contents.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-680 oozie's assembly creates an extra level of empty
>>> subdirectory
>>>>>> for docs. (rvs via tucu)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-608 testCoordChangeEndTime and testCoordChangeXCommand are
>>>>>> failing(Mohamed).
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-678 Update NOTICE.txt to reflect the workcount binaries into
>>>>>> oozie src(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Keys used to sign the release are available at
>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/oozie/trunk/KEYS?view=markup.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Please download, test, and try it out from here:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>> http://people.apache.org/~kamrul/oozie-3.1.3-incubating-candidate-2/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The release log, md5 signature, gpg signature, and rat report all
>>> can
>>>>>> be found at the above link.
>>>>>>>> In case, anyone is interested, the svn tag from the release was
>>> created
>>>>>> could be found at :
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/oozie/tags/release-3.1.3-rc2/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Should we release this? Vote closes on Feb 15th.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Mohammad
>>>>>> 
>>> 
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)

Posted by Mohamed Battisha <mb...@yahoo.com>.
+1
Downloaded the source and ran the unit test 

Everything looks fine 

Thanks!
Mohamed

On Feb 18, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Jeremy Hanna wrote:

> +1 (non-binding from a user/contributor) - pulled down the artifacts and did the maven tests on them.  Got it to complete, but on one of the test runs I got test failures for TestPauseTransitService and TestSshActionExecutor.  I think those may need to just be looked at for completion consistency and not anything to do with the code their testing.
> 
> On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Mayank Bansal wrote:
> 
>> +1
>> 
>> looks good.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Mayank
>> 
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>> So can the other contributors/committers VOTE now?
>>> 
>>> Yes
>>> 
>>>> As oozie-user VOTE is already closed, what would be the best option at
>>> this stage?
>>>> 1. Go to genenral@incubator and vote there.
>>>> 2. Vote in the same threadat oozie-user
>>> 
>>> Might as well show support/express reservations on the
>>> general@incubator thread so it's in one place. IIRC the general@
>>> thread cc'd oozie-dev. -C
>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Mohammad
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Cc: Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>; "
>>> oozie-users@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:13 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>>> 
>>>> That's a pretty dire error in the documentation if that's the
>>>> impression. Projects (and podlings) are responsible for their code,
>>>> community, and releases. The PPMC certifies that the artifact
>>>> represents an iteration of its progress by voting on a release in some
>>>> series, just as a PMC does.
>>>> 
>>>> The IPMC has a functionary, mundane role. It's supposed to make
>>>> cursory checks: code being released respects the licensing
>>>> requirements of dependencies, notices give accurate guidance to
>>>> downstream consumers of that code, etc. Since the ASF is releasing
>>>> that code under license, the idea is that IPMC members protect the
>>>> foundation from common misunderstandings (e.g. if a podling thought
>>>> they could release GPL'd code, someone else's code, etc.).
>>>> 
>>>> Once the project has some experience with releases, a clear
>>>> understanding of what the ASF wants w.r.t. community, etc. then
>>>> podling graduates. Before that, the voting guidelines are necessary
>>>> because the IPMC members are acting on behalf of the foundation. The
>>>> vote from the PPMC expresses that the artifact represents their
>>>> output. The vote from the IPMC certifies that the artifact won't get
>>>> the ASF into legal trouble.
>>>> 
>>>> Release votes are a strict majority per ASF bylaws. AFAICT, asserting
>>>> that the IPMC votes are the only ones that are binding in the second
>>>> round is just adding a layer of indirection to solve a counting
>>>> problem. -C
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur <tu...@cloudera.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Chris,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm a bit confused here, I've thought that the significant votes where
>>> from
>>>>> the IPMC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I guess most of the committers/contributors thought along the same
>>> lines.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thxs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Alejandro
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> The vote didn't attract any votes from contributors. As far as I know,
>>>>>> none of the voters in this thread actually develop Oozie.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The IPMC vote is a check on the podling's compliance with licensing
>>>>>> and other foundation-level practices. It's far, far less significant
>>>>>> than the community's appraisal of the release itself. Would the PPMC
>>>>>> please weigh in? -C
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>> As 72 hours has passed, I would like to close the vote.
>>>>>>> The proposed RC-2 got three +1s from three mentors without -1 or 0.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Special thanks to mentors who gave their valuable feedback to make it
>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>> I also want to mention Alejandro and Virag who helped to make the
>>> whole
>>>>>> process smoother.
>>>>>>> Now I will ask for vote in general@incubator
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Moahmmad
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>> From: Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>
>>>>>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>> Cc: Oozie-users <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:42 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I ran the tests and also inspected the top level txt files. Looks
>>> good.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> +1 for the release.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Mohammad Islam wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks everyone for giving valuable comments for the RC0 and RC1.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I created a new candidate (RC2) build for Oozie-3.1.3 incorporating
>>>>>> most of the comments (including Chris's finding).
>>>>>>>> The following JIRAs were resolved based on the comments:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-694 Update the Install and Quick start guide with appropriate
>>>>>> hadoop versions for branch-3.1 (Mohammad)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-602 Update the Hadoop version to be an Apache Hadoop version
>>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-689 XTestCase proxyuser settings fails with Hadoop
>>> 1.0.0/0.23.1
>>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-601 Oozie's POMs should use org.apache.oozie as group (tucu)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-685 Update License file with 3rd party license information.
>>>>>> (Mohammad)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-682 Update version 3.1.3 to 3.1.3-incubating in all
>>>>>> pom.xml.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-683 Add DISCLAIMER file in the root.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-681 Update readme.txt contents.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-680 oozie's assembly creates an extra level of empty
>>> subdirectory
>>>>>> for docs. (rvs via tucu)
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-608 testCoordChangeEndTime and testCoordChangeXCommand are
>>>>>> failing(Mohamed).
>>>>>>>> OOZIE-678 Update NOTICE.txt to reflect the workcount binaries into
>>>>>> oozie src(Mohammad)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Keys used to sign the release are available at
>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/oozie/trunk/KEYS?view=markup.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Please download, test, and try it out from here:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>> http://people.apache.org/~kamrul/oozie-3.1.3-incubating-candidate-2/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The release log, md5 signature, gpg signature, and rat report all
>>> can
>>>>>> be found at the above link.
>>>>>>>> In case, anyone is interested, the svn tag from the release was
>>> created
>>>>>> could be found at :
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/oozie/tags/release-3.1.3-rc2/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Should we release this? Vote closes on Feb 15th.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Mohammad
>>>>>> 
>>> 
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)

Posted by Jeremy Hanna <je...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding from a user/contributor) - pulled down the artifacts and did the maven tests on them.  Got it to complete, but on one of the test runs I got test failures for TestPauseTransitService and TestSshActionExecutor.  I think those may need to just be looked at for completion consistency and not anything to do with the code their testing.

On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Mayank Bansal wrote:

> +1
> 
> looks good.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mayank
> 
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Chris,
>>> So can the other contributors/committers VOTE now?
>> 
>> Yes
>> 
>>> As oozie-user VOTE is already closed, what would be the best option at
>> this stage?
>>> 1. Go to genenral@incubator and vote there.
>>> 2. Vote in the same threadat oozie-user
>> 
>> Might as well show support/express reservations on the
>> general@incubator thread so it's in one place. IIRC the general@
>> thread cc'd oozie-dev. -C
>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Mohammad
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc: Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>; "
>> oozie-users@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:13 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>> 
>>> That's a pretty dire error in the documentation if that's the
>>> impression. Projects (and podlings) are responsible for their code,
>>> community, and releases. The PPMC certifies that the artifact
>>> represents an iteration of its progress by voting on a release in some
>>> series, just as a PMC does.
>>> 
>>> The IPMC has a functionary, mundane role. It's supposed to make
>>> cursory checks: code being released respects the licensing
>>> requirements of dependencies, notices give accurate guidance to
>>> downstream consumers of that code, etc. Since the ASF is releasing
>>> that code under license, the idea is that IPMC members protect the
>>> foundation from common misunderstandings (e.g. if a podling thought
>>> they could release GPL'd code, someone else's code, etc.).
>>> 
>>> Once the project has some experience with releases, a clear
>>> understanding of what the ASF wants w.r.t. community, etc. then
>>> podling graduates. Before that, the voting guidelines are necessary
>>> because the IPMC members are acting on behalf of the foundation. The
>>> vote from the PPMC expresses that the artifact represents their
>>> output. The vote from the IPMC certifies that the artifact won't get
>>> the ASF into legal trouble.
>>> 
>>> Release votes are a strict majority per ASF bylaws. AFAICT, asserting
>>> that the IPMC votes are the only ones that are binding in the second
>>> round is just adding a layer of indirection to solve a counting
>>> problem. -C
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur <tu...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> Chris,
>>>> 
>>>> I'm a bit confused here, I've thought that the significant votes where
>> from
>>>> the IPMC.
>>>> 
>>>> I guess most of the committers/contributors thought along the same
>> lines.
>>>> 
>>>> Thxs.
>>>> 
>>>> Alejandro
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The vote didn't attract any votes from contributors. As far as I know,
>>>>> none of the voters in this thread actually develop Oozie.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The IPMC vote is a check on the podling's compliance with licensing
>>>>> and other foundation-level practices. It's far, far less significant
>>>>> than the community's appraisal of the release itself. Would the PPMC
>>>>> please weigh in? -C
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>> As 72 hours has passed, I would like to close the vote.
>>>>>> The proposed RC-2 got three +1s from three mentors without -1 or 0.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Special thanks to mentors who gave their valuable feedback to make it
>>>>> better.
>>>>>> I also want to mention Alejandro and Virag who helped to make the
>> whole
>>>>> process smoother.
>>>>>> Now I will ask for vote in general@incubator
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Moahmmad
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> From: Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>
>>>>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Cc: Oozie-users <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:42 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I ran the tests and also inspected the top level txt files. Looks
>> good.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +1 for the release.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Mohammad Islam wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks everyone for giving valuable comments for the RC0 and RC1.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I created a new candidate (RC2) build for Oozie-3.1.3 incorporating
>>>>> most of the comments (including Chris's finding).
>>>>>>> The following JIRAs were resolved based on the comments:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> OOZIE-694 Update the Install and Quick start guide with appropriate
>>>>> hadoop versions for branch-3.1 (Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-602 Update the Hadoop version to be an Apache Hadoop version
>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-689 XTestCase proxyuser settings fails with Hadoop
>> 1.0.0/0.23.1
>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-601 Oozie's POMs should use org.apache.oozie as group (tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-685 Update License file with 3rd party license information.
>>>>> (Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-682 Update version 3.1.3 to 3.1.3-incubating in all
>>>>> pom.xml.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-683 Add DISCLAIMER file in the root.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-681 Update readme.txt contents.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-680 oozie's assembly creates an extra level of empty
>> subdirectory
>>>>> for docs. (rvs via tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-608 testCoordChangeEndTime and testCoordChangeXCommand are
>>>>> failing(Mohamed).
>>>>>>> OOZIE-678 Update NOTICE.txt to reflect the workcount binaries into
>>>>> oozie src(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Keys used to sign the release are available at
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/oozie/trunk/KEYS?view=markup.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please download, test, and try it out from here:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> http://people.apache.org/~kamrul/oozie-3.1.3-incubating-candidate-2/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The release log, md5 signature, gpg signature, and rat report all
>> can
>>>>> be found at the above link.
>>>>>>> In case, anyone is interested, the svn tag from the release was
>> created
>>>>> could be found at :
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/oozie/tags/release-3.1.3-rc2/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Should we release this? Vote closes on Feb 15th.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Mohammad
>>>>> 
>>

Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)

Posted by Jeremy Hanna <je...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding from a user/contributor) - pulled down the artifacts and did the maven tests on them.  Got it to complete, but on one of the test runs I got test failures for TestPauseTransitService and TestSshActionExecutor.  I think those may need to just be looked at for completion consistency and not anything to do with the code their testing.

On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Mayank Bansal wrote:

> +1
> 
> looks good.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mayank
> 
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Chris,
>>> So can the other contributors/committers VOTE now?
>> 
>> Yes
>> 
>>> As oozie-user VOTE is already closed, what would be the best option at
>> this stage?
>>> 1. Go to genenral@incubator and vote there.
>>> 2. Vote in the same threadat oozie-user
>> 
>> Might as well show support/express reservations on the
>> general@incubator thread so it's in one place. IIRC the general@
>> thread cc'd oozie-dev. -C
>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Mohammad
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc: Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>; "
>> oozie-users@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:13 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>> 
>>> That's a pretty dire error in the documentation if that's the
>>> impression. Projects (and podlings) are responsible for their code,
>>> community, and releases. The PPMC certifies that the artifact
>>> represents an iteration of its progress by voting on a release in some
>>> series, just as a PMC does.
>>> 
>>> The IPMC has a functionary, mundane role. It's supposed to make
>>> cursory checks: code being released respects the licensing
>>> requirements of dependencies, notices give accurate guidance to
>>> downstream consumers of that code, etc. Since the ASF is releasing
>>> that code under license, the idea is that IPMC members protect the
>>> foundation from common misunderstandings (e.g. if a podling thought
>>> they could release GPL'd code, someone else's code, etc.).
>>> 
>>> Once the project has some experience with releases, a clear
>>> understanding of what the ASF wants w.r.t. community, etc. then
>>> podling graduates. Before that, the voting guidelines are necessary
>>> because the IPMC members are acting on behalf of the foundation. The
>>> vote from the PPMC expresses that the artifact represents their
>>> output. The vote from the IPMC certifies that the artifact won't get
>>> the ASF into legal trouble.
>>> 
>>> Release votes are a strict majority per ASF bylaws. AFAICT, asserting
>>> that the IPMC votes are the only ones that are binding in the second
>>> round is just adding a layer of indirection to solve a counting
>>> problem. -C
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur <tu...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> Chris,
>>>> 
>>>> I'm a bit confused here, I've thought that the significant votes where
>> from
>>>> the IPMC.
>>>> 
>>>> I guess most of the committers/contributors thought along the same
>> lines.
>>>> 
>>>> Thxs.
>>>> 
>>>> Alejandro
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The vote didn't attract any votes from contributors. As far as I know,
>>>>> none of the voters in this thread actually develop Oozie.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The IPMC vote is a check on the podling's compliance with licensing
>>>>> and other foundation-level practices. It's far, far less significant
>>>>> than the community's appraisal of the release itself. Would the PPMC
>>>>> please weigh in? -C
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>> As 72 hours has passed, I would like to close the vote.
>>>>>> The proposed RC-2 got three +1s from three mentors without -1 or 0.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Special thanks to mentors who gave their valuable feedback to make it
>>>>> better.
>>>>>> I also want to mention Alejandro and Virag who helped to make the
>> whole
>>>>> process smoother.
>>>>>> Now I will ask for vote in general@incubator
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Moahmmad
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> From: Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>
>>>>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Cc: Oozie-users <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:42 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I ran the tests and also inspected the top level txt files. Looks
>> good.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +1 for the release.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Mohammad Islam wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks everyone for giving valuable comments for the RC0 and RC1.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I created a new candidate (RC2) build for Oozie-3.1.3 incorporating
>>>>> most of the comments (including Chris's finding).
>>>>>>> The following JIRAs were resolved based on the comments:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> OOZIE-694 Update the Install and Quick start guide with appropriate
>>>>> hadoop versions for branch-3.1 (Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-602 Update the Hadoop version to be an Apache Hadoop version
>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-689 XTestCase proxyuser settings fails with Hadoop
>> 1.0.0/0.23.1
>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-601 Oozie's POMs should use org.apache.oozie as group (tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-685 Update License file with 3rd party license information.
>>>>> (Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-682 Update version 3.1.3 to 3.1.3-incubating in all
>>>>> pom.xml.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-683 Add DISCLAIMER file in the root.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-681 Update readme.txt contents.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-680 oozie's assembly creates an extra level of empty
>> subdirectory
>>>>> for docs. (rvs via tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-608 testCoordChangeEndTime and testCoordChangeXCommand are
>>>>> failing(Mohamed).
>>>>>>> OOZIE-678 Update NOTICE.txt to reflect the workcount binaries into
>>>>> oozie src(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Keys used to sign the release are available at
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/oozie/trunk/KEYS?view=markup.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please download, test, and try it out from here:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> http://people.apache.org/~kamrul/oozie-3.1.3-incubating-candidate-2/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The release log, md5 signature, gpg signature, and rat report all
>> can
>>>>> be found at the above link.
>>>>>>> In case, anyone is interested, the svn tag from the release was
>> created
>>>>> could be found at :
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/oozie/tags/release-3.1.3-rc2/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Should we release this? Vote closes on Feb 15th.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Mohammad
>>>>> 
>> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)

Posted by Mohamed Battisha <mb...@live.com>.
+1
Downloaded the source and ran the unit tests

Things look fine 

Thanks!
Mohamed

On Feb 17, 2012, at 11:59 AM, Mayank Bansal wrote:

> +1
> 
> looks good.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mayank
> 
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Chris,
>>> So can the other contributors/committers VOTE now?
>> 
>> Yes
>> 
>>> As oozie-user VOTE is already closed, what would be the best option at
>> this stage?
>>> 1. Go to genenral@incubator and vote there.
>>> 2. Vote in the same threadat oozie-user
>> 
>> Might as well show support/express reservations on the
>> general@incubator thread so it's in one place. IIRC the general@
>> thread cc'd oozie-dev. -C
>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Mohammad
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc: Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>; "
>> oozie-users@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:13 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>> 
>>> That's a pretty dire error in the documentation if that's the
>>> impression. Projects (and podlings) are responsible for their code,
>>> community, and releases. The PPMC certifies that the artifact
>>> represents an iteration of its progress by voting on a release in some
>>> series, just as a PMC does.
>>> 
>>> The IPMC has a functionary, mundane role. It's supposed to make
>>> cursory checks: code being released respects the licensing
>>> requirements of dependencies, notices give accurate guidance to
>>> downstream consumers of that code, etc. Since the ASF is releasing
>>> that code under license, the idea is that IPMC members protect the
>>> foundation from common misunderstandings (e.g. if a podling thought
>>> they could release GPL'd code, someone else's code, etc.).
>>> 
>>> Once the project has some experience with releases, a clear
>>> understanding of what the ASF wants w.r.t. community, etc. then
>>> podling graduates. Before that, the voting guidelines are necessary
>>> because the IPMC members are acting on behalf of the foundation. The
>>> vote from the PPMC expresses that the artifact represents their
>>> output. The vote from the IPMC certifies that the artifact won't get
>>> the ASF into legal trouble.
>>> 
>>> Release votes are a strict majority per ASF bylaws. AFAICT, asserting
>>> that the IPMC votes are the only ones that are binding in the second
>>> round is just adding a layer of indirection to solve a counting
>>> problem. -C
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur <tu...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> Chris,
>>>> 
>>>> I'm a bit confused here, I've thought that the significant votes where
>> from
>>>> the IPMC.
>>>> 
>>>> I guess most of the committers/contributors thought along the same
>> lines.
>>>> 
>>>> Thxs.
>>>> 
>>>> Alejandro
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The vote didn't attract any votes from contributors. As far as I know,
>>>>> none of the voters in this thread actually develop Oozie.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The IPMC vote is a check on the podling's compliance with licensing
>>>>> and other foundation-level practices. It's far, far less significant
>>>>> than the community's appraisal of the release itself. Would the PPMC
>>>>> please weigh in? -C
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>> As 72 hours has passed, I would like to close the vote.
>>>>>> The proposed RC-2 got three +1s from three mentors without -1 or 0.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Special thanks to mentors who gave their valuable feedback to make it
>>>>> better.
>>>>>> I also want to mention Alejandro and Virag who helped to make the
>> whole
>>>>> process smoother.
>>>>>> Now I will ask for vote in general@incubator
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Moahmmad
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> From: Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>
>>>>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Cc: Oozie-users <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:42 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I ran the tests and also inspected the top level txt files. Looks
>> good.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +1 for the release.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Mohammad Islam wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks everyone for giving valuable comments for the RC0 and RC1.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I created a new candidate (RC2) build for Oozie-3.1.3 incorporating
>>>>> most of the comments (including Chris's finding).
>>>>>>> The following JIRAs were resolved based on the comments:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> OOZIE-694 Update the Install and Quick start guide with appropriate
>>>>> hadoop versions for branch-3.1 (Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-602 Update the Hadoop version to be an Apache Hadoop version
>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-689 XTestCase proxyuser settings fails with Hadoop
>> 1.0.0/0.23.1
>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-601 Oozie's POMs should use org.apache.oozie as group (tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-685 Update License file with 3rd party license information.
>>>>> (Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-682 Update version 3.1.3 to 3.1.3-incubating in all
>>>>> pom.xml.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-683 Add DISCLAIMER file in the root.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-681 Update readme.txt contents.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-680 oozie's assembly creates an extra level of empty
>> subdirectory
>>>>> for docs. (rvs via tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-608 testCoordChangeEndTime and testCoordChangeXCommand are
>>>>> failing(Mohamed).
>>>>>>> OOZIE-678 Update NOTICE.txt to reflect the workcount binaries into
>>>>> oozie src(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Keys used to sign the release are available at
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/oozie/trunk/KEYS?view=markup.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please download, test, and try it out from here:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> http://people.apache.org/~kamrul/oozie-3.1.3-incubating-candidate-2/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The release log, md5 signature, gpg signature, and rat report all
>> can
>>>>> be found at the above link.
>>>>>>> In case, anyone is interested, the svn tag from the release was
>> created
>>>>> could be found at :
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/oozie/tags/release-3.1.3-rc2/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Should we release this? Vote closes on Feb 15th.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Mohammad
>>>>> 
>>

Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)

Posted by Mohamed Battisha <mb...@live.com>.
+1
Downloaded the source and ran the unit tests

Things look fine 

Thanks!
Mohamed

On Feb 17, 2012, at 11:59 AM, Mayank Bansal wrote:

> +1
> 
> looks good.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mayank
> 
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Chris,
>>> So can the other contributors/committers VOTE now?
>> 
>> Yes
>> 
>>> As oozie-user VOTE is already closed, what would be the best option at
>> this stage?
>>> 1. Go to genenral@incubator and vote there.
>>> 2. Vote in the same threadat oozie-user
>> 
>> Might as well show support/express reservations on the
>> general@incubator thread so it's in one place. IIRC the general@
>> thread cc'd oozie-dev. -C
>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Mohammad
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc: Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>; "
>> oozie-users@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:13 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>> 
>>> That's a pretty dire error in the documentation if that's the
>>> impression. Projects (and podlings) are responsible for their code,
>>> community, and releases. The PPMC certifies that the artifact
>>> represents an iteration of its progress by voting on a release in some
>>> series, just as a PMC does.
>>> 
>>> The IPMC has a functionary, mundane role. It's supposed to make
>>> cursory checks: code being released respects the licensing
>>> requirements of dependencies, notices give accurate guidance to
>>> downstream consumers of that code, etc. Since the ASF is releasing
>>> that code under license, the idea is that IPMC members protect the
>>> foundation from common misunderstandings (e.g. if a podling thought
>>> they could release GPL'd code, someone else's code, etc.).
>>> 
>>> Once the project has some experience with releases, a clear
>>> understanding of what the ASF wants w.r.t. community, etc. then
>>> podling graduates. Before that, the voting guidelines are necessary
>>> because the IPMC members are acting on behalf of the foundation. The
>>> vote from the PPMC expresses that the artifact represents their
>>> output. The vote from the IPMC certifies that the artifact won't get
>>> the ASF into legal trouble.
>>> 
>>> Release votes are a strict majority per ASF bylaws. AFAICT, asserting
>>> that the IPMC votes are the only ones that are binding in the second
>>> round is just adding a layer of indirection to solve a counting
>>> problem. -C
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur <tu...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> Chris,
>>>> 
>>>> I'm a bit confused here, I've thought that the significant votes where
>> from
>>>> the IPMC.
>>>> 
>>>> I guess most of the committers/contributors thought along the same
>> lines.
>>>> 
>>>> Thxs.
>>>> 
>>>> Alejandro
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The vote didn't attract any votes from contributors. As far as I know,
>>>>> none of the voters in this thread actually develop Oozie.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The IPMC vote is a check on the podling's compliance with licensing
>>>>> and other foundation-level practices. It's far, far less significant
>>>>> than the community's appraisal of the release itself. Would the PPMC
>>>>> please weigh in? -C
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>> As 72 hours has passed, I would like to close the vote.
>>>>>> The proposed RC-2 got three +1s from three mentors without -1 or 0.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Special thanks to mentors who gave their valuable feedback to make it
>>>>> better.
>>>>>> I also want to mention Alejandro and Virag who helped to make the
>> whole
>>>>> process smoother.
>>>>>> Now I will ask for vote in general@incubator
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Moahmmad
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> From: Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>
>>>>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Cc: Oozie-users <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:42 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I ran the tests and also inspected the top level txt files. Looks
>> good.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +1 for the release.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Mohammad Islam wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks everyone for giving valuable comments for the RC0 and RC1.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I created a new candidate (RC2) build for Oozie-3.1.3 incorporating
>>>>> most of the comments (including Chris's finding).
>>>>>>> The following JIRAs were resolved based on the comments:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> OOZIE-694 Update the Install and Quick start guide with appropriate
>>>>> hadoop versions for branch-3.1 (Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-602 Update the Hadoop version to be an Apache Hadoop version
>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-689 XTestCase proxyuser settings fails with Hadoop
>> 1.0.0/0.23.1
>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-601 Oozie's POMs should use org.apache.oozie as group (tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-685 Update License file with 3rd party license information.
>>>>> (Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-682 Update version 3.1.3 to 3.1.3-incubating in all
>>>>> pom.xml.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-683 Add DISCLAIMER file in the root.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-681 Update readme.txt contents.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-680 oozie's assembly creates an extra level of empty
>> subdirectory
>>>>> for docs. (rvs via tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-608 testCoordChangeEndTime and testCoordChangeXCommand are
>>>>> failing(Mohamed).
>>>>>>> OOZIE-678 Update NOTICE.txt to reflect the workcount binaries into
>>>>> oozie src(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Keys used to sign the release are available at
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/oozie/trunk/KEYS?view=markup.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please download, test, and try it out from here:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> http://people.apache.org/~kamrul/oozie-3.1.3-incubating-candidate-2/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The release log, md5 signature, gpg signature, and rat report all
>> can
>>>>> be found at the above link.
>>>>>>> In case, anyone is interested, the svn tag from the release was
>> created
>>>>> could be found at :
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/oozie/tags/release-3.1.3-rc2/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Should we release this? Vote closes on Feb 15th.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Mohammad
>>>>> 
>>

Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)

Posted by Jeremy Hanna <je...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding from a user/contributor) - pulled down the artifacts and did the maven tests on them.  Got it to complete, but on one of the test runs I got test failures for TestPauseTransitService and TestSshActionExecutor.  I think those may need to just be looked at for completion consistency and not anything to do with the code their testing.

On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Mayank Bansal wrote:

> +1
> 
> looks good.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mayank
> 
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Chris,
>>> So can the other contributors/committers VOTE now?
>> 
>> Yes
>> 
>>> As oozie-user VOTE is already closed, what would be the best option at
>> this stage?
>>> 1. Go to genenral@incubator and vote there.
>>> 2. Vote in the same threadat oozie-user
>> 
>> Might as well show support/express reservations on the
>> general@incubator thread so it's in one place. IIRC the general@
>> thread cc'd oozie-dev. -C
>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Mohammad
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc: Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>; "
>> oozie-users@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:13 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>> 
>>> That's a pretty dire error in the documentation if that's the
>>> impression. Projects (and podlings) are responsible for their code,
>>> community, and releases. The PPMC certifies that the artifact
>>> represents an iteration of its progress by voting on a release in some
>>> series, just as a PMC does.
>>> 
>>> The IPMC has a functionary, mundane role. It's supposed to make
>>> cursory checks: code being released respects the licensing
>>> requirements of dependencies, notices give accurate guidance to
>>> downstream consumers of that code, etc. Since the ASF is releasing
>>> that code under license, the idea is that IPMC members protect the
>>> foundation from common misunderstandings (e.g. if a podling thought
>>> they could release GPL'd code, someone else's code, etc.).
>>> 
>>> Once the project has some experience with releases, a clear
>>> understanding of what the ASF wants w.r.t. community, etc. then
>>> podling graduates. Before that, the voting guidelines are necessary
>>> because the IPMC members are acting on behalf of the foundation. The
>>> vote from the PPMC expresses that the artifact represents their
>>> output. The vote from the IPMC certifies that the artifact won't get
>>> the ASF into legal trouble.
>>> 
>>> Release votes are a strict majority per ASF bylaws. AFAICT, asserting
>>> that the IPMC votes are the only ones that are binding in the second
>>> round is just adding a layer of indirection to solve a counting
>>> problem. -C
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur <tu...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> Chris,
>>>> 
>>>> I'm a bit confused here, I've thought that the significant votes where
>> from
>>>> the IPMC.
>>>> 
>>>> I guess most of the committers/contributors thought along the same
>> lines.
>>>> 
>>>> Thxs.
>>>> 
>>>> Alejandro
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The vote didn't attract any votes from contributors. As far as I know,
>>>>> none of the voters in this thread actually develop Oozie.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The IPMC vote is a check on the podling's compliance with licensing
>>>>> and other foundation-level practices. It's far, far less significant
>>>>> than the community's appraisal of the release itself. Would the PPMC
>>>>> please weigh in? -C
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Mohammad Islam <mi...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>> As 72 hours has passed, I would like to close the vote.
>>>>>> The proposed RC-2 got three +1s from three mentors without -1 or 0.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Special thanks to mentors who gave their valuable feedback to make it
>>>>> better.
>>>>>> I also want to mention Alejandro and Virag who helped to make the
>> whole
>>>>> process smoother.
>>>>>> Now I will ask for vote in general@incubator
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Moahmmad
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> From: Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>
>>>>>> To: oozie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Cc: Oozie-users <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:42 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Oozie 3.1.3 (candidate 2)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I ran the tests and also inspected the top level txt files. Looks
>> good.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +1 for the release.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Mohammad Islam wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks everyone for giving valuable comments for the RC0 and RC1.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I created a new candidate (RC2) build for Oozie-3.1.3 incorporating
>>>>> most of the comments (including Chris's finding).
>>>>>>> The following JIRAs were resolved based on the comments:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> OOZIE-694 Update the Install and Quick start guide with appropriate
>>>>> hadoop versions for branch-3.1 (Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-602 Update the Hadoop version to be an Apache Hadoop version
>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-689 XTestCase proxyuser settings fails with Hadoop
>> 1.0.0/0.23.1
>>>>> (tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-601 Oozie's POMs should use org.apache.oozie as group (tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-685 Update License file with 3rd party license information.
>>>>> (Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-682 Update version 3.1.3 to 3.1.3-incubating in all
>>>>> pom.xml.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-683 Add DISCLAIMER file in the root.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-681 Update readme.txt contents.(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-680 oozie's assembly creates an extra level of empty
>> subdirectory
>>>>> for docs. (rvs via tucu)
>>>>>>> OOZIE-608 testCoordChangeEndTime and testCoordChangeXCommand are
>>>>> failing(Mohamed).
>>>>>>> OOZIE-678 Update NOTICE.txt to reflect the workcount binaries into
>>>>> oozie src(Mohammad)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Keys used to sign the release are available at
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/oozie/trunk/KEYS?view=markup.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please download, test, and try it out from here:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> http://people.apache.org/~kamrul/oozie-3.1.3-incubating-candidate-2/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The release log, md5 signature, gpg signature, and rat report all
>> can
>>>>> be found at the above link.
>>>>>>> In case, anyone is interested, the svn tag from the release was
>> created
>>>>> could be found at :
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/oozie/tags/release-3.1.3-rc2/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Should we release this? Vote closes on Feb 15th.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Mohammad
>>>>> 
>>