You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> on 2014/02/22 02:12:09 UTC
[VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 2.2.3 incubating
Hello everyone,
This is a call for a vote on Apache Phoenix 2.2.3 incubating. Phoenix is a
SQL query engine for Apache HBase, a NoSQL data store. It is accessed as a
JDBC driver and enables querying and managing HBase tables using SQL. This
will be our first release in the incubator.
The RC is available for download at
http://people.apache.org/~jamestaylor/phoenix-2.2.3-incubating-RC2/ and is
signed with my code signing key 5F5F3233.
A vote was held on developer mailing list [1] and it passed with 4 +1's,
and no
-1's or +0's (2 votes were from IPMC members).
Vote will be open for at least 72 hours:
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
Thanks!
James
[1] Vote thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201402.mbox/%3CCAAF1JdjsiHGFYQjkMVSWJmGaRJQd0fJJRVAB7J70-i2tLR2UkA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 2.2.3 incubating
Posted by James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>.
I'll cancel this vote and start a vote on a new RC shortly. There was a
pretty serious bug that was found in this one anyway.
Is it best practice to have a separate source-only tar bar and not include
the source in the binary tar ball? Or should it be included in both?
Thanks,
James
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>wrote:
> Hi Sebb,
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 2:19 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've had a quick look at the (sole) archive, and it contains both
> > source and compiled jars.
> > Although it is OK to release convenience binaries, there must be a
> > source only release, as that is the ASF mission - to release open
> > source.
> >
>
> The "what must every release contain" doc says:
>
> Every ASF release *must* contain a source package, which must be sufficient
> for a user to build and test the release provided they have access to the
> appropriate platform and tools. The source package must be
> cryptographically
> signed <http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html> by the Release
> Manager with a detached signature; and that package together with its
> signature must be tested prior to voting +1 for release.
>
>
> We can mentor the podling to produce a separate source only tarball, but
> this might be a point of confusion, because the candidate tarball here
> conforms to the above language, I have personally built and tested this
> release from the properly signed tarball. It is a source tarball also
> containing compiled binaries.
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 2.2.3 incubating
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
Thanks for the clarifications and background reading.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>wrote:
> Taking a step back... My feeling about many of the ASF's policy docs is
> that
> they would be clearer if they were formulated using imperatives
> (SHOULD/MUST/etc.) rather than as FAQs. Informational FAQs also have an
> unfortunate tendency to harden into policy over time, leading to bloat.
>
+1
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
T
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 2.2.3 incubating
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> The how-to-release documentation perhaps has more room for interpretation
> than is desirable.
FWIW, I've cleaned up some of the Incubator's Release Management guide and
though it's still messy overall, some chunks are ready for use IMO -- notably
the release checklist we hammered out last December. The last item in the
checklist addresses this issue:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list
Release consists of source code only, no binaries.
Clarifying the Foundation-level release documentation to emphasize that the
ASF only releases source is a Board action item which has been on the back
burner for some time. If I finish cleaning up the Incubator docs and that
action item is still on the agenda I'll petition to have it assigned to me.
Taking a step back... My feeling about many of the ASF's policy docs is that
they would be clearer if they were formulated using imperatives
(SHOULD/MUST/etc.) rather than as FAQs. Informational FAQs also have an
unfortunate tendency to harden into policy over time, leading to bloat.
> There had been long discussion in general@ list about what should be contained
>> in release artifacts (with 0.8.1 Spark release) and I believe the
>> conclusion was to avoid executable binaries in the source release
>> artifacts.
>
> I missed this discussion. Probably this conclusion just hasn't surfaced
> into documentation yet.
Here are some emails from Board member Roy Fielding on the subject:
http://s.apache.org/roy-binary-deps-0
http://s.apache.org/roy-binary-deps-1
http://s.apache.org/roy-binary-deps-2
http://s.apache.org/roy-binary-deps-3
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 2.2.3 incubating
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 24 February 2014 18:25, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Are you saying it is ok to contain compiled executed binaries if they
>> were signed?
>>
>
> I did not take a position on that.
>
> The how-to-release documentation perhaps has more room for interpretation
> than is desirable.
>
> There had been long discussion in general@ list about what should be contained
>> in release artifacts (with 0.8.1 Spark release) and I believe the
>> conclusion was to avoid executable binaries in the source release
>> artifacts.
>>
>
> I missed this discussion. Probably this conclusion just hasn't surfaced
> into documentation yet.
I think it is implied here
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what (last para)
but I agree it should be make clearer elsewhere.
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 2.2.3 incubating
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Are you saying it is ok to contain compiled executed binaries if they
> were signed?
>
I did not take a position on that.
The how-to-release documentation perhaps has more room for interpretation
than is desirable.
There had been long discussion in general@ list about what should be contained
> in release artifacts (with 0.8.1 Spark release) and I believe the
> conclusion was to avoid executable binaries in the source release
> artifacts.
>
I missed this discussion. Probably this conclusion just hasn't surfaced
into documentation yet.
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 2.2.3 incubating
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
Hi Andrew,
Are you saying it is ok to contain compiled executed binaries if they
were signed?
There had been long discussion in general@ list about what should be
contained in release artifacts (with 0.8.1 Spark release) and I
believe the conclusion was to avoid executable binaries in the source
release artifacts.
- Henry
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Sebb,
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 2:19 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've had a quick look at the (sole) archive, and it contains both
>> source and compiled jars.
>> Although it is OK to release convenience binaries, there must be a
>> source only release, as that is the ASF mission - to release open
>> source.
>>
>
> The "what must every release contain" doc says:
>
> Every ASF release *must* contain a source package, which must be sufficient
> for a user to build and test the release provided they have access to the
> appropriate platform and tools. The source package must be cryptographically
> signed <http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html> by the Release
> Manager with a detached signature; and that package together with its
> signature must be tested prior to voting +1 for release.
>
>
> We can mentor the podling to produce a separate source only tarball, but
> this might be a point of confusion, because the candidate tarball here
> conforms to the above language, I have personally built and tested this
> release from the properly signed tarball. It is a source tarball also
> containing compiled binaries.
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 2.2.3 incubating
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
Hi Sebb,
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 2:19 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've had a quick look at the (sole) archive, and it contains both
> source and compiled jars.
> Although it is OK to release convenience binaries, there must be a
> source only release, as that is the ASF mission - to release open
> source.
>
The "what must every release contain" doc says:
Every ASF release *must* contain a source package, which must be sufficient
for a user to build and test the release provided they have access to the
appropriate platform and tools. The source package must be cryptographically
signed <http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html> by the Release
Manager with a detached signature; and that package together with its
signature must be tested prior to voting +1 for release.
We can mentor the podling to produce a separate source only tarball, but
this might be a point of confusion, because the candidate tarball here
conforms to the above language, I have personally built and tested this
release from the properly signed tarball. It is a source tarball also
containing compiled binaries.
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 2.2.3 incubating
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 22 February 2014 01:12, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> This is a call for a vote on Apache Phoenix 2.2.3 incubating. Phoenix is a
> SQL query engine for Apache HBase, a NoSQL data store. It is accessed as a
> JDBC driver and enables querying and managing HBase tables using SQL. This
> will be our first release in the incubator.
>
> The RC is available for download at
> http://people.apache.org/~jamestaylor/phoenix-2.2.3-incubating-RC2/ and is
> signed with my code signing key 5F5F3233.
What is the URL for the source code tag? And the revision/hash?
It is vital for reviewers to be able to check that the source files
agree with the source code, as that it is when code is added to the
source code repo that the IP checks etc. are done.
Also for the historical record (should there ever be a complaint about
the content) having the URLs in the mail archives could be vital
evidence that the PMC has done due diligence on the release contents.
I've had a quick look at the (sole) archive, and it contains both
source and compiled jars.
Although it is OK to release convenience binaries, there must be a
source only release, as that is the ASF mission - to release open
source.
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what-must-every-release-contain
> A vote was held on developer mailing list [1] and it passed with 4 +1's,
> and no
> -1's or +0's (2 votes were from IPMC members).
>
> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours:
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Thanks!
> James
>
> [1] Vote thread:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201402.mbox/%3CCAAF1JdjsiHGFYQjkMVSWJmGaRJQd0fJJRVAB7J70-i2tLR2UkA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org