Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Kafka, mail # dev - [VOTE RESULT] was: [VOTE] Apache Kafka Release 0.8.0 - Candidate 5


Copy link to this message
-
[VOTE RESULT] was: [VOTE] Apache Kafka Release 0.8.0 - Candidate 5
Joe Stein 2013-12-03, 20:16
including my vote we have four +1 binding votes

non-binding we have one +1 and one -1 votes

the release passes

I will ship the artifacts to maven central, update the distribution folder
and the download page... once all of that is available I will send an
ANNOUNCE

Thanks everyone!

/*******************************************
 Joe Stein
 Founder, Principal Consultant
 Big Data Open Source Security LLC
 http://www.stealth.ly
 Twitter: @allthingshadoop <http://www.twitter.com/allthingshadoop>
********************************************/
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Joe Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> verified test, quick start, repository working from sbt and pom maven
>
> all working as expected for this release.
>
> verified signatures and crcs
>
> +1
>
> I will call the vote results after I go through the thread and capture all
> outstanding issue to move forward to 0.8.1
>
>
> /*******************************************
>  Joe Stein
>  Founder, Principal Consultant
>  Big Data Open Source Security LLC
>  http://www.stealth.ly
>  Twitter: @allthingshadoop <http://www.twitter.com/allthingshadoop>
> ********************************************/
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Jun Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> There is a difference btw lazy consensus and lazy majority. See
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Bylaws#Bylaws-Approvalsfor
>> the precise definition.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jun
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 6:06 AM, David Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Not to get too side tracked, but I think lazy consensus is supposed to
>> > mean "silence gives assent"
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#
>> > LazyConsensus
>> >
>> > After the release, we should clean up the language of the bylaws to
>> match
>> > the language here http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html
>> >
>> > -David
>> >
>> > On 12/3/13 1:41 AM, Jun Rao wrote:
>> >
>> >> The release voting is based on lazy majority (
>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Bylaws#Bylaws-Voting
>> ).
>> >> So
>> >> a -1 doesn't kill the release. The question is whether those issues are
>> >> really show stoppers.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Jun
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:19 AM, David Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>  Inline:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 12/2/13 11:59 AM, Joe Stein wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>  General future thought comment first: lets be careful please to
>> raising
>> >>>> issues as show stoppers that have been there previously (especially
>> if
>> >>>> greater than one version previous release back also has the problem)
>> and
>> >>>> can get fixed in a subsequent release and is only now more pressing
>> >>>> because
>> >>>> we know about them... seeing something should not necessarily always
>> >>>> create
>> >>>> priority (sometimes sure, of course but not always that is not the
>> best
>> >>>> way
>> >>>> to manage changes).  The VOTE thread should be to artifacts and what
>> we
>> >>>> are
>> >>>> releasing as proper and correct per Apache guidelines... and to make
>> >>>> sure
>> >>>> that the person doing the release doesn't do something incorrect ...
>> >>>> like
>> >>>> using the wrong version of JDK to build =8^/.  If we are not happy
>> with
>> >>>> release as ready to ship then lets not call a VOTE and save the
>> >>>> prolonged
>> >>>> weeks that drag out with so many release candidates.  The community
>> >>>> suffers
>> >>>> from this.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>  +1 If we can get most of this release preparation stuff automated,
>> >>> then we
>> >>> can iterate on it in a release branch before tagging and voting.
>> >>>
>> >>>   ok, now on to RC5 ...lets extend the vote until 12pm PT tomorrow ...
>> >>>
>> >>>> hopefully a few more hours for other folks to comment and discuss the
>> >>>> issues you raised with my $0.02852425 included below and follow-ups
>> as
>> >>>> they
>> >>>> become necessary... I am also out of pocket in a few hours until