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

Switch to Plain View
Accumulo, mail # dev - Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0


+
Keith Turner 2013-06-03, 22:05
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-06-03, 21:49
+
Christopher 2013-06-03, 22:10
+
Christopher 2013-06-03, 22:23
+
Sean Busbey 2013-06-03, 22:31
+
Christopher 2013-06-03, 22:39
+
William Slacum 2013-06-03, 22:31
+
Keith Turner 2013-06-03, 22:22
+
Christopher 2013-06-03, 22:15
+
Josh Elser 2013-06-03, 21:04
+
Josh Elser 2013-06-03, 22:01
+
Sean Busbey 2013-06-03, 23:05
+
Dave Marion 2013-06-04, 00:54
+
Josh Elser 2013-06-04, 01:05
+
Ben Popp 2013-06-04, 02:37
+
Sean Busbey 2013-06-04, 12:21
+
John Vines 2013-06-04, 14:51
+
Christopher 2013-06-05, 17:54
+
John Vines 2013-06-05, 18:14
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-06-05, 18:20
+
Eric Newton 2013-06-05, 20:36
+
Christopher 2013-06-05, 20:42
+
Josh Elser 2013-06-05, 23:09
+
Mike Drob 2013-06-05, 23:25
+
David Medinets 2013-06-05, 23:29
+
Mike Drob 2013-06-05, 23:28
+
John Vines 2013-06-05, 23:12
+
Keith Turner 2013-06-05, 23:54
+
John Vines 2013-06-05, 22:09
+
Jason Trost 2013-06-05, 22:48
+
Sean Busbey 2013-06-05, 18:12
+
German Gutierrez 2013-06-06, 02:53
+
David Lyle 2013-06-06, 03:51
+
David Medinets 2013-06-06, 13:52
+
Billie Rinaldi 2013-06-06, 14:22
+
Josh Elser 2013-06-06, 15:03
+
Christopher 2013-06-06, 18:09
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] JDK 1.7 - Switch for Accumulo 1.6.0
Christopher 2013-06-07, 16:05
The vote has closed. The final results, as I see them, are:

PMC (+6, -4)
+1: Christopher Tubbs, Keith Turner, William Slacum, Dave Marion (with
reservations), Eric Newton, Jason Trost
-1: Adam Fuchs, John Vines, Josh Elser, David Medinets

Other (+1, -3)
+1: German Gutierrez
-1: Sean Busbey, Mike Drob, David Lyle

If we count all votes, it's a tie. And if we only count PMC, it's
still pretty split, especially considering Dave Marion's +1 came with
reservations. Either way, I'm thinking there isn't enough consensus
(not for me to be comfortable commit the change). So, in the interests
of moving forward and playing cautiously, I think we can table this
and postpone it for the 1.6.0 development cycle. We can revisit this
at the beginning of the 1.7.0 development cycle.

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That would have also been my assumption since it was not otherwise stated.
>> However, given the nature of this vote, I believe non-binding votes should
>> also be carefully considered.
>>
>>
>> On 6/6/13 10:22 AM, Billie Rinaldi wrote:
>>>
>>> I would assume all our votes are "community welcome to vote, only
>>> committers binding."
>>>
>>> Billie
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:52 AM, David Medinets
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Who is voting - the accumulo community, the PMC members, or some other
>>>> subset of people?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:51 PM, David Lyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> -1 Prefer to stay on java 1.6 until pulled by features or eol.
>>>>>
>>>>> -D...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:53 PM, German Gutierrez
>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I vote for in favor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> German A. Gutierrez
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please explicitly vote in favor or against changing the java
>>>>>>> dependency to >=1.7.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Parsing vague "may cause..." or "might be..." concerns throughout the
>>>>>>> text of the thread is tedious, and does not help me know what the
>>>>>>> consensus of the group is, so we can move forward. If there's a
>>>>>>> specific issue that is informing your vote, that's great, feel free
>>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> state it, but I don't want this issue to drag out for the duration of
>>>>>>> the the Accumulo 1.6.0 development cycle because people are reluctant
>>>>>>> to come to a concrete opinion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it fails a vote, we'll revisit for Accumulo 1.7.0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm personally in favor of the change (+1), but it's not a big deal
>>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> me. I just want a concrete resolution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>>>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have also heard mulling about issues with the way Kerberos
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> authentication
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> behaves with JDK1.7 for hadoop. This may also have implications on
>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Accumulo implementation as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean Busbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Ben Popp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> CDH4 claims JDK 1.6 and 1.7 support:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera-content/cloudera-docs/CDH4/latest/CDH4-Requirements-and-Supported-Versions/cdhrsv_topic_3.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
+
Sean Busbey 2013-06-06, 14:00