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

Switch to Plain View
Hadoop >> mail # dev >> [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1


+
Matt Foley 2013-05-06, 18:11
+
Matt Foley 2013-05-06, 18:36
+
Matt Foley 2013-05-10, 16:44
+
Jason Lowe 2013-05-11, 01:35
+
Matt Foley 2013-05-11, 19:02
+
Jason Lowe 2013-05-13, 01:23
+
Chris Nauroth 2013-05-13, 03:27
+
Suresh Srinivas 2013-05-10, 21:45
+
Chris Douglas 2013-05-13, 20:13
+
Matt Foley 2013-05-13, 20:32
+
Matt Foley 2013-05-13, 20:36
+
Chris Douglas 2013-05-13, 21:01
+
Matt Foley 2013-05-13, 21:44
+
Chris Douglas 2013-05-13, 23:32
+
Matt Foley 2013-05-14, 00:35
+
Chris Douglas 2013-05-14, 02:14
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1
Sure, will do. --M
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Chris Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Wow; thanks for taking this to ground, Matt.
>
> I don't think we need to rerun the vote. While you've paged it in,
> would you mind adding some of this context to the HowToRelease wiki?
> -C
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Matt Foley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Thanks for the reference.
> >
> > Roy's email clearly says that the thing to be voted on should be source
> > only. This email is in the context of a discussion about a release
> > candidate that incorporated jars (from a third-party project) WITHOUT
> > sources.  In particular, the offending project had apparently captured
> > certain object files that were depended upon, and included them in the
> > "source" repository.  This is not what Hadoop builds do.
> >
> > The document http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html which is stated to
> be
> > normative, says,
> >
> > All releases are in the form of the source materials needed to make
> changes
> > to the software being released. In some cases, binary/bytecode packages
> are
> > also produced as a convenience to users that might not have the
> appropriate
> > tools to build a compiled version of the source. In all such cases, the
> > binary/bytecode package must have the same version number as the source
> > release and may only add binary/bytecode files that are the result of
> > compiling that version of the source code release.
> >
> >
> > And the document
> >
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practicewhich
> > is referenced multiple times in Roy's email (although it states
> > itself to be non-normative), obviously contemplates that binaries may be
> > released along with the sources, because in the section about the
> "release
> > artifacts distribution directory" it says,
> >
> > Many projects [optionally] use structured layouts... The common theme is
> > that each type of artifact is grouped into a subdirectory. For example,
> > binary packages into binaries and source packages into source (say).
> >
> >
> > So it is very clear that we may continue producing convenience binary
> > artifacts, as long as they are a result of and of identical provenance as
> > the sources.
> > And I hope we all understand that the file hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz met
> that
> > criteria, and was only for convenience and was not the subject of the
> vote.
> >
> > However, the file hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz, which was the subject of the vote,
> > included both source (full, buildable source), and a corresponding set of
> > built artifacts produced from that source on a CentOS 6 platform under my
> > control per (in the normative document)
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#owned-controlled-hardware .  Once
> > again, it was the intent that only the sources were the subject of the
> > vote, and the binaries themselves are clearly of the kind anticipated by
> > these policies.
> >
> > BUT if the fact of packaging them together invalidated the vote, I will
> > re-create it and run a vote again.
> >
> > Regardless, I will going forward change the build.xml file to produce a
> > pure source tarball so that can be the unambiguous subject of the vote.
> >
> > Roy, if you're listening in, can you please say whether I need to re-do
> > this vote?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --Matt
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Chris Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> FWIW: http://s.apache.org/nnN
> >>
> >> The rest of the thread (and related discussion that month) is fairly
> >> unambiguous about what the PMC is allowed to approve. Elsewhere,
> >> there's clarification that the prohibition is against binaries for
> >> which we don't also distribute source, so (AFAICT) distributing
> >> third-party jars is also not kosher. I'll ask for clarification. -C
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Matt Foley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hmm.  My understanding was that only sources constituted a "release"
+
Arun C Murthy 2013-05-13, 05:29