Hi Devs

0.90.6RC3 is available for download.  

http://people.apache.org/~ramkrishna/0.90.6RC3/
The new RC had to be taken due to the problem found in RC2. (HBASE-5321)
Internally we, in Huawei had carried out good testing with RC2+HBASE-5321.
Also for RC2 we got few +1s.  This new RC is just with an added fix and does not affect major stability of 0.90.6.

I would like to close the voting on Feb 8th.  Because not much difference between RC2 and RC3.  Also the sooner we release 0.90.6 we can go ahead with the commits to 0.90 branch.  Please vote for the new RC.

Thanks for all your support.

Regards
Ram

P.S.
New fix added in RC3.
HBASE-5321  this.allRegionServersOffline not set to false after one RS comes online and 
               assignment is done in 0.90.
________________________________________
From: Ramakrishna s vasudevan
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FW: 0.90.6 RC2 available for download

Hi Devs

Just a gentle reminder on voting the 0.90.6RC2.  Thanks one and all.

Regards
Ram
________________________________________
From: Ramakrishna s vasudevan
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ANN: 0.90.6 RC2 available for download

Hi All

After the RC1 release cut, few problems with CHANGES.txt was found.
So i have taken a new release cut RC2 .  It has an addendum for HBASE-5153 also.

Any issues found due to regression will be checked in for a new RC.

Till then would like to freeze all the code changes into 0.90.  Any new changes can go after the release of 0.90.6 is done.

Pls vote for the new RC
http://people.apache.org/~ramkrishna/0.90.6_RC2/ before February 4th.
Regards
Ram

________________________________________
From: Ramakrishna s vasudevan
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ANN: 0.90.6 RC1 available for download Was: 0.90.6 Release status

Hi Devs

HBASE-0.90.6 RC1 is available for download at the following path.

http://people.apache.org/~ramkrishna/0.90.6_RC1

The following defects are included in this RC

HBASE-5196 - Failure in region split after PONR could cause region hole
HBASE-5153 - Add retry logic in HConnectionImplementation#resetZooKeeperTrackers

HBASE-5225 - Backport HBASE-3845 -data loss because lastSeqWritten can miss memstore edits
HBASE-5235 - HLogSplitter writer thread's streams not getting closed when any of the writer threads has exceptions.
HBASE-5237 - Addendum for HBASE-5160 and HBASE-4397
HBASE-5269 - IllegalMonitorStateException while retryin HLog split in 0.90 branch. (Induced defect in 0.90.6RC0).

HBASE-5179 - Concurrent processing of processFaileOver and ServerShutdownHandler may cause region to be assigned before log splitting is completed, causing data loss

will  not go into the release.  After good testing and confirmation it will be committed into future 0.90 and trunk branches.

Unless we get any defect from the regression of this RC i would like to take this RC for 0.90.6 release.

Your suggestions are welcome.

Please vote +1/-1 for this RC.  The vote closes on January 29th.

Regards
Ram

________________________________________
From: Ramakrishna s vasudevan
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: 0.90.6 Release status

It is always better to get in a patch with test case.  But if it takes  a little more time to get the test case can we verify the patch with good cluster testing and raise a JIRA for the test case integration that Stack gives.

By this way we can get the patch in the release and also satisfies Todd's suggestion.

Any comments so that i can raise a test task for the same.

Regards
Ram
________________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 8:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 0.90.6 Release status

Stack said he would come up with some test for hbase-5179.
Suppose that takes a few more days, do you plan to check in the fix into 0.90 branch ?

According to Todd's suggestion earlier, a Jira shouldn't be open for too long during which time patches continuously get checked in.

Cheers

On Jan 21, 2012, at 4:34 AM, Ramakrishna s vasudevan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Good news, I'm +1 from a functionality point of view.  Bad news I think I
have to -1 from an administrative point of view.  I'm kind of new to this,
so folks please correct me if I shouldn't be concerned.

Looks good to me from a functional point of view:
+ Setup on a 5 node cluster on top of CDH3u3 HDFS
++ Ran Apache Bigtop 0.3.0-SNAPSHOT's TestLoadAndVerify overnight in a loop
++ Did some manual kill tests of masters, as well as root, meta and random
RS.
+ Diffed the 'ls -R' of 0.90.5 and 0.90.6 and diffs looked sane based on
patches.
+ md5sums look good.

I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I think of
have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
- mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in the
0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.
- Ram, I think if I understand the signing stuff properly, your gpg
signature needs to be verifed/signed by someone else in the "web of trust".
 (following these instructions:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/verification.html )

----
[jon@c0309 dist]$ gpg --verify hbase-0.90.6.tar.gz.asc
hbase-0.90.6.rc3.tar.gz
gpg: Signature made Sat 04 Feb 2012 09:24:17 PM PST using RSA key ID
867B57B8
gpg: Good signature from "Ramkrishna S Vasudevan (for code checkin) <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
owner.
Primary key fingerprint: 7405 BB74 016B E7D0 7B25  15E3 A1AB D56E 867B 57B8
[jon@c0309 dist]$ gpg --fingerprint 867B57B8
pub   4096R/867B57B8 2012-01-14
      Key fingerprint = 7405 BB74 016B E7D0 7B25  15E3 A1AB D56E 867B 57B8
uid                  Ramkrishna S Vasudevan (for code checkin) <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
sub   4096R/AE508DE2 2012-01-14
----

Jon.

On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Ramakrishna s vasudevan <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Devs
>
> 0.90.6RC3 is available for download.
>
> http://people.apache.org/~ramkrishna/0.90.6RC3/
>
>
> The new RC had to be taken due to the problem found in RC2. (HBASE-5321)
> Internally we, in Huawei had carried out good testing with RC2+HBASE-5321.
> Also for RC2 we got few +1s.  This new RC is just with an added fix and
> does not affect major stability of 0.90.6.
>
> I would like to close the voting on Feb 8th.  Because not much difference
> between RC2 and RC3.  Also the sooner we release 0.90.6 we can go ahead
> with the commits to 0.90 branch.  Please vote for the new RC.
>
> Thanks for all your support.
>
> Regards
> Ram
>
> P.S.
> New fix added in RC3.
> HBASE-5321  this.allRegionServersOffline not set to false after one RS
> comes online and
>                assignment is done in 0.90.
> ________________________________________
> From: Ramakrishna s vasudevan
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:09 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: FW: 0.90.6 RC2 available for download
>
> Hi Devs
>
> Just a gentle reminder on voting the 0.90.6RC2.  Thanks one and all.
>
> Regards
> Ram
> ________________________________________
> From: Ramakrishna s vasudevan
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:28 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: ANN: 0.90.6 RC2 available for download
>
> Hi All
>
> After the RC1 release cut, few problems with CHANGES.txt was found.
> So i have taken a new release cut RC2 .  It has an addendum for HBASE-5153
> also.
>
> Any issues found due to regression will be checked in for a new RC.
>
> Till then would like to freeze all the code changes into 0.90.  Any new
> changes can go after the release of 0.90.6 is done.
>
> Pls vote for the new RC
> http://people.apache.org/~ramkrishna/0.90.6_RC2/ before February 4th.
>
>
> Regards
> Ram
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Ramakrishna s vasudevan
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:10 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: ANN: 0.90.6 RC1 available for download Was: 0.90.6 Release status
>
> Hi Devs
>
> HBASE-0.90.6 RC1 is available for download at the following path.

// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Ram, I think if I understand the signing stuff properly, your gpg
> signature needs to be verifed/signed by someone else in the "web of trust".

Regarding signatures: if another committer reviews the release and is
willing to stand by it, that committer can sign the artifact in lieu
of Ram. So, if you vote +1 on the next release, Jon, you can sign it,
and I can sign your key at the office to get you into the apache "web
of trust".

-Todd
--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

Hi Jon

I have published my key in pub 4096R/867B57B8 in the MIT PGP public key
server.

Hope this is what you meant of publishing the key?

Regards
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Lipcon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Ram, I think if I understand the signing stuff properly, your gpg
> signature needs to be verifed/signed by someone else in the "web of
trust".

Regarding signatures: if another committer reviews the release and is
willing to stand by it, that committer can sign the artifact in lieu
of Ram. So, if you vote +1 on the next release, Jon, you can sign it,
and I can sign your key at the office to get you into the apache "web
of trust".

-Todd
--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I think of
> have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
> - mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in the
> 0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.
I went through a few.  Looks like its complaining mostly because of
empty files, files it can't read the apache license in (because its
got xml preamble), etc.  I'd say this is important but my guess is
that 0.90.5 wasn't much better.  I'd suggest we could file an issue to
fix this in 0.90.7/0.92.1 but that maybe its not enough to sink the
release?

> - Ram, I think if I understand the signing stuff properly, your gpg
> signature needs to be verifed/signed by someone else in the "web of trust".
>  (following these
> instructions: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/verification.html )
>

Good one.

I like Todd's suggestion.  I was going to give it a spin in next day
or so.  I could add my signature on the end?

St.Ack
P.S. Ram, here is a reason for why you need to come to SF for hbasecon
so we can meet you face to face and sign your key.

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Jon
>
> I have published my key in pub 4096R/867B57B8 in the MIT PGP public key
> server.
>
> Hope this is what you meant of publishing the key?
>

You've done the first part Ram.

See http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing#web-of-trust
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_signing_party

St.Ack

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I think of
> > have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
> > - mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in the
> > 0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.
>
>
> I went through a few.  Looks like its complaining mostly because of
> empty files, files it can't read the apache license in (because its
> got xml preamble), etc.  I'd say this is important but my guess is
> that 0.90.5 wasn't much better.  I'd suggest we could file an issue to
> fix this in 0.90.7/0.92.1 but that maybe its not enough to sink the
> release?
>
>
I chatted with some of the apache veterans, and I'm going to stand by the
-1 unless the licenses are fixed.  It should be trivial fix.

See this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
"What files in an Apache release do not require a license header?"

That said, release votes are by majority, and there is no veto:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

Jon.
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I've filed a jira to add rat check to the build
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363

And to fix the licenses:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

I plan on implementing them when I get in to the office today.

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I think
>> of
>> > have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
>> > - mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in the
>> > 0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.
>>
>>
>> I went through a few.  Looks like its complaining mostly because of
>> empty files, files it can't read the apache license in (because its
>> got xml preamble), etc.  I'd say this is important but my guess is
>> that 0.90.5 wasn't much better.  I'd suggest we could file an issue to
>> fix this in 0.90.7/0.92.1 but that maybe its not enough to sink the
>> release?
>>
>>
> I chatted with some of the apache veterans, and I'm going to stand by the
> -1 unless the licenses are fixed.  It should be trivial fix.
>
>  See this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
> "What files in an Apache release do not require a license header?"
>
> That said, release votes are by majority, and there is no veto:
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> Jon.
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Hey Ram,

You are the release manager so you get to decide if on the status of the
0.90.6 release. I believe we have a workaround for the key signing bit.  I
believe the rules say a sufficient condition for a release is to have at
least 3 formal pmc +1's as long as there are more +1's than -1's.  (There
is no veto on releases).

I've created patches that make rat run when you add a -Prelease profile to
the 0.90.x build and also a patch the fixes the licenses making rat pass.
 If these are applied my current -1 vote will turn into a +1.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363 (takes 0.92 and trunk as
well)
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5377

Also, the license fixes for 0.92/trunk were fairly trivial and I'll give
Elliot credit for them on that patch:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> I've filed a jira to add rat check to the build
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363
>
> And to fix the licenses:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364
>
> I plan on implementing them when I get in to the office today.
>
> Jon.
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I think
>>> of
>>> > have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
>>> > - mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in the
>>> > 0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.
>>>
>>>
>>> I went through a few.  Looks like its complaining mostly because of
>>> empty files, files it can't read the apache license in (because its
>>> got xml preamble), etc.  I'd say this is important but my guess is
>>> that 0.90.5 wasn't much better.  I'd suggest we could file an issue to
>>> fix this in 0.90.7/0.92.1 but that maybe its not enough to sink the
>>> release?
>>>
>>>
>> I chatted with some of the apache veterans, and I'm going to stand by the
>> -1 unless the licenses are fixed.  It should be trivial fix.
>>
>>  See this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>> "What files in an Apache release do not require a license header?"
>>
>> That said, release votes are by majority, and there is no veto:
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>
>> Jon.
>> --
>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
>> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Hi Jon

First of all thanks a lot for working on the license issues.  

As discussed with Stack the key signing part he said he can do it.  
Currently for the 0.90.6RC3 only you have voted.  I received 2 +1s on RC2
only.  
If you can commit your changes once again we can take another RC for 0.90.6
but it may delay the release further.  
So in another 2 days we get more +1s then we go ahead with this Rc3,  if not
take another RC with your recent JIRAs and release that one.

Does that sound ok ? Good on you Jon.

Regards
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hsieh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

Hey Ram,

You are the release manager so you get to decide if on the status of the
0.90.6 release. I believe we have a workaround for the key signing bit.  I
believe the rules say a sufficient condition for a release is to have at
least 3 formal pmc +1's as long as there are more +1's than -1's.  (There
is no veto on releases).

I've created patches that make rat run when you add a -Prelease profile to
the 0.90.x build and also a patch the fixes the licenses making rat pass.
 If these are applied my current -1 vote will turn into a +1.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363 (takes 0.92 and trunk as
well)
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5377

Also, the license fixes for 0.92/trunk were fairly trivial and I'll give
Elliot credit for them on that patch:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> I've filed a jira to add rat check to the build
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363
>
> And to fix the licenses:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364
>
> I plan on implementing them when I get in to the office today.
>
> Jon.
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I think
>>> of
>>> > have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
>>> > - mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in the
>>> > 0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.
>>>
>>>
>>> I went through a few.  Looks like its complaining mostly because of
>>> empty files, files it can't read the apache license in (because its
>>> got xml preamble), etc.  I'd say this is important but my guess is
>>> that 0.90.5 wasn't much better.  I'd suggest we could file an issue to
>>> fix this in 0.90.7/0.92.1 but that maybe its not enough to sink the
>>> release?
>>>
>>>
>> I chatted with some of the apache veterans, and I'm going to stand by the
>> -1 unless the licenses are fixed.  It should be trivial fix.
>>
>>  See this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>> "What files in an Apache release do not require a license header?"
>>
>> That said, release votes are by majority, and there is no veto:
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>
>> Jon.
>> --
>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
>> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Ram,

Sounds perfect.

You've asked to freeze the 0.90 branch.  Is it cool if I commit two
rat/license related patches onto the 0.90 branch later today?  (I'm going
to be away from computer for a few weeks -- long needed vacation).

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Jon
>
> First of all thanks a lot for working on the license issues.
>
> As discussed with Stack the key signing part he said he can do it.
> Currently for the 0.90.6RC3 only you have voted.  I received 2 +1s on RC2
> only.
> If you can commit your changes once again we can take another RC for 0.90.6
> but it may delay the release further.
> So in another 2 days we get more +1s then we go ahead with this Rc3,  if
> not
> take another RC with your recent JIRAs and release that one.
>
> Does that sound ok ? Good on you Jon.
>
> Regards
> Ram
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Hsieh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:54 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download
>
> Hey Ram,
>
> You are the release manager so you get to decide if on the status of the
> 0.90.6 release. I believe we have a workaround for the key signing bit.  I
> believe the rules say a sufficient condition for a release is to have at
> least 3 formal pmc +1's as long as there are more +1's than -1's.  (There
> is no veto on releases).
>
> I've created patches that make rat run when you add a -Prelease profile to
> the 0.90.x build and also a patch the fixes the licenses making rat pass.
>  If these are applied my current -1 vote will turn into a +1.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363 (takes 0.92 and trunk as
> well)
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5377
>
> Also, the license fixes for 0.92/trunk were fairly trivial and I'll give
> Elliot credit for them on that patch:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364
>
> Jon.
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > I've filed a jira to add rat check to the build
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363
> >
> > And to fix the licenses:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364
> >
> > I plan on implementing them when I get in to the office today.
> >
> > Jon.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>> > I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I
> think
> >>> of
> >>> > have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
> >>> > - mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in
> the
> >>> > 0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I went through a few.  Looks like its complaining mostly because of
> >>> empty files, files it can't read the apache license in (because its
> >>> got xml preamble), etc.  I'd say this is important but my guess is
> >>> that 0.90.5 wasn't much better.  I'd suggest we could file an issue to
> >>> fix this in 0.90.7/0.92.1 but that maybe its not enough to sink the
> >>> release?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I chatted with some of the apache veterans, and I'm going to stand by
> the
> >> -1 unless the licenses are fixed.  It should be trivial fix.
> >>
> >>  See this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
> >> "What files in an Apache release do not require a license header?"
> >>
> >> That said, release votes are by majority, and there is no veto:
> >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >>
> >> Jon.
> >> --
> >> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> >> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> > // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Hi Jon

Yes Jon I am fine with it.  If I get +1 on this RC then I will release the
RC3 as the final version.  If I don't get then I will take another RC with
your changes.  

Thanks Jon.  Have a joyful vacation. (smile)

Regards
Ram
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hsieh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 6:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

Ram,

Sounds perfect.

You've asked to freeze the 0.90 branch.  Is it cool if I commit two
rat/license related patches onto the 0.90 branch later today?  (I'm going
to be away from computer for a few weeks -- long needed vacation).

Jon.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Jon
>
> First of all thanks a lot for working on the license issues.
>
> As discussed with Stack the key signing part he said he can do it.
> Currently for the 0.90.6RC3 only you have voted.  I received 2 +1s on RC2
> only.
> If you can commit your changes once again we can take another RC for
0.90.6
> but it may delay the release further.
> So in another 2 days we get more +1s then we go ahead with this Rc3,  if
> not
> take another RC with your recent JIRAs and release that one.
>
> Does that sound ok ? Good on you Jon.
>
> Regards
> Ram
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Hsieh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:54 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download
>
> Hey Ram,
>
> You are the release manager so you get to decide if on the status of the
> 0.90.6 release. I believe we have a workaround for the key signing bit.  I
> believe the rules say a sufficient condition for a release is to have at
> least 3 formal pmc +1's as long as there are more +1's than -1's.  (There
> is no veto on releases).
>
> I've created patches that make rat run when you add a -Prelease profile to
> the 0.90.x build and also a patch the fixes the licenses making rat pass.
>  If these are applied my current -1 vote will turn into a +1.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363 (takes 0.92 and trunk as
> well)
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5377
>
> Also, the license fixes for 0.92/trunk were fairly trivial and I'll give
> Elliot credit for them on that patch:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364
>
> Jon.
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > I've filed a jira to add rat check to the build
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363
> >
> > And to fix the licenses:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364
> >
> > I plan on implementing them when I get in to the office today.
> >
> > Jon.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>> > I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I
> think
> >>> of
> >>> > have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
> >>> > - mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in
> the
> >>> > 0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I went through a few.  Looks like its complaining mostly because of
> >>> empty files, files it can't read the apache license in (because its
> >>> got xml preamble), etc.  I'd say this is important but my guess is
> >>> that 0.90.5 wasn't much better.  I'd suggest we could file an issue to
> >>> fix this in 0.90.7/0.92.1 but that maybe its not enough to sink the
> >>> release?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I chatted with some of the apache veterans, and I'm going to stand by
> the
> >> -1 unless the licenses are fixed.  It should be trivial fix.
> >>
> >>  See this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
> >> "What files in an Apache release do not require a license header?"
> >>
> >> That said, release votes are by majority, and there is no veto:
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sounds good.  I'll mark them 0.90.7 when I commit, but someone else will
have to change to 0.90.6 if an rc4 is needed.

Jon.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Jon
>
> Yes Jon I am fine with it.  If I get +1 on this RC then I will release the
> RC3 as the final version.  If I don't get then I will take another RC with
> your changes.
>
> Thanks Jon.  Have a joyful vacation. (smile)
>
> Regards
> Ram
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Hsieh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 6:01 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download
>
> Ram,
>
> Sounds perfect.
>
> You've asked to freeze the 0.90 branch.  Is it cool if I commit two
> rat/license related patches onto the 0.90 branch later today?  (I'm going
> to be away from computer for a few weeks -- long needed vacation).
>
> Jon.
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jon
> >
> > First of all thanks a lot for working on the license issues.
> >
> > As discussed with Stack the key signing part he said he can do it.
> > Currently for the 0.90.6RC3 only you have voted.  I received 2 +1s on RC2
> > only.
> > If you can commit your changes once again we can take another RC for
> 0.90.6
> > but it may delay the release further.
> > So in another 2 days we get more +1s then we go ahead with this Rc3,  if
> > not
> > take another RC with your recent JIRAs and release that one.
> >
> > Does that sound ok ? Good on you Jon.
> >
> > Regards
> > Ram
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Hsieh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:54 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download
> >
> > Hey Ram,
> >
> > You are the release manager so you get to decide if on the status of the
> > 0.90.6 release. I believe we have a workaround for the key signing bit.
>  I
> > believe the rules say a sufficient condition for a release is to have at
> > least 3 formal pmc +1's as long as there are more +1's than -1's.  (There
> > is no veto on releases).
> >
> > I've created patches that make rat run when you add a -Prelease profile
> to
> > the 0.90.x build and also a patch the fixes the licenses making rat pass.
> >  If these are applied my current -1 vote will turn into a +1.
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363 (takes 0.92 and trunk
> as
> > well)
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5377
> >
> > Also, the license fixes for 0.92/trunk were fairly trivial and I'll give
> > Elliot credit for them on that patch:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364
> >
> > Jon.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I've filed a jira to add rat check to the build
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363
> > >
> > > And to fix the licenses:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364
> > >
> > > I plan on implementing them when I get in to the office today.
> > >
> > > Jon.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >>> > I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I
> > think
> > >>> of
> > >>> > have to -1 the release from an admin point of view.
> > >>> > - mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in
> > the
> > >>> > 0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I went through a few.  Looks like its complaining mostly because of
> > >>> empty files, files it can't read the apache license in (because its
> > >>> got xml preamble), etc.  I'd say this is important but my guess is
> > >>> that 0.90.5 wasn't much better.  I'd suggest we could file an issue
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Ram:

I'd say go ahead and roll a new RC.

I tried to convince Jon that this RC was no worse that previous
releases off this branch and that we could fix the licensing issue in
the next point release but he is not having it.

While its true we could outvote him, as the rules allow, in general I
think it healthier all around if there are no votes against a release
when it goes out.  Its tough enough finding volunteers to spend some
time evaluating candidates as it is; if someone has taken the time to
play with the release as its plain Jon has then I'd say lets respect
their opinion.

Good on you Ram,
St.Ack

P.S. Let me sign the artifacts before you announce the next candidate;
I'll download them and play with them to evaluate them and if
basically good, will do the signing.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Jon
>
> Yes Jon I am fine with it.  If I get +1 on this RC then I will release the
> RC3 as the final version.  If I don't get then I will take another RC with
> your changes.
>
> Thanks Jon.  Have a joyful vacation. (smile)
>
> Regards
> Ram
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Hsieh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 6:01 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download
>
> Ram,
>
> Sounds perfect.
>
> You've asked to freeze the 0.90 branch.  Is it cool if I commit two
> rat/license related patches onto the 0.90 branch later today?  (I'm going
> to be away from computer for a few weeks -- long needed vacation).
>
> Jon.
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jon
>>
>> First of all thanks a lot for working on the license issues.
>>
>> As discussed with Stack the key signing part he said he can do it.
>> Currently for the 0.90.6RC3 only you have voted.  I received 2 +1s on RC2
>> only.
>> If you can commit your changes once again we can take another RC for
> 0.90.6
>> but it may delay the release further.
>> So in another 2 days we get more +1s then we go ahead with this Rc3,  if
>> not
>> take another RC with your recent JIRAs and release that one.
>>
>> Does that sound ok ? Good on you Jon.
>>
>> Regards
>> Ram
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jonathan Hsieh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:54 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download
>>
>> Hey Ram,
>>
>> You are the release manager so you get to decide if on the status of the
>> 0.90.6 release. I believe we have a workaround for the key signing bit.  I
>> believe the rules say a sufficient condition for a release is to have at
>> least 3 formal pmc +1's as long as there are more +1's than -1's.  (There
>> is no veto on releases).
>>
>> I've created patches that make rat run when you add a -Prelease profile to
>> the 0.90.x build and also a patch the fixes the licenses making rat pass.
>>  If these are applied my current -1 vote will turn into a +1.
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363 (takes 0.92 and trunk as
>> well)
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5377
>>
>> Also, the license fixes for 0.92/trunk were fairly trivial and I'll give
>> Elliot credit for them on that patch:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364
>>
>> Jon.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I've filed a jira to add rat check to the build
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363
>> >
>> > And to fix the licenses:
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364
>> >
>> > I plan on implementing them when I get in to the office today.
>> >
>> > Jon.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

I agree with what Stack said.

I think HBASE-5200 should be included in the next RC.

Cheers

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Ram:
>
> I'd say go ahead and roll a new RC.
>
> I tried to convince Jon that this RC was no worse that previous
> releases off this branch and that we could fix the licensing issue in
> the next point release but he is not having it.
>
> While its true we could outvote him, as the rules allow, in general I
> think it healthier all around if there are no votes against a release
> when it goes out.  Its tough enough finding volunteers to spend some
> time evaluating candidates as it is; if someone has taken the time to
> play with the release as its plain Jon has then I'd say lets respect
> their opinion.
>
> Good on you Ram,
> St.Ack
>
> P.S. Let me sign the artifacts before you announce the next candidate;
> I'll download them and play with them to evaluate them and if
> basically good, will do the signing.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Jon
> >
> > Yes Jon I am fine with it.  If I get +1 on this RC then I will release
> the
> > RC3 as the final version.  If I don't get then I will take another RC
> with
> > your changes.
> >
> > Thanks Jon.  Have a joyful vacation. (smile)
> >
> > Regards
> > Ram
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Hsieh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 6:01 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download
> >
> > Ram,
> >
> > Sounds perfect.
> >
> > You've asked to freeze the 0.90 branch.  Is it cool if I commit two
> > rat/license related patches onto the 0.90 branch later today?  (I'm going
> > to be away from computer for a few weeks -- long needed vacation).
> >
> > Jon.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Jon
> >>
> >> First of all thanks a lot for working on the license issues.
> >>
> >> As discussed with Stack the key signing part he said he can do it.
> >> Currently for the 0.90.6RC3 only you have voted.  I received 2 +1s on
> RC2
> >> only.
> >> If you can commit your changes once again we can take another RC for
> > 0.90.6
> >> but it may delay the release further.
> >> So in another 2 days we get more +1s then we go ahead with this Rc3,  if
> >> not
> >> take another RC with your recent JIRAs and release that one.
> >>
> >> Does that sound ok ? Good on you Jon.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Ram
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jonathan Hsieh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:54 AM
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download
> >>
> >> Hey Ram,
> >>
> >> You are the release manager so you get to decide if on the status of the
> >> 0.90.6 release. I believe we have a workaround for the key signing bit.
>  I
> >> believe the rules say a sufficient condition for a release is to have at
> >> least 3 formal pmc +1's as long as there are more +1's than -1's.
>  (There
> >> is no veto on releases).
> >>
> >> I've created patches that make rat run when you add a -Prelease profile
> to
> >> the 0.90.x build and also a patch the fixes the licenses making rat
> pass.
> >>  If these are applied my current -1 vote will turn into a +1.
> >>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363 (takes 0.92 and trunk
> as
> >> well)
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5377
> >>
> >> Also, the license fixes for 0.92/trunk were fairly trivial and I'll give
> >> Elliot credit for them on that patch:
> >>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364
> >>
> >> Jon.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I've filed a jira to add rat check to the build
> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363
> >> >
> >> > And to fix the licenses:

Hey guys,

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

This one needs a review:

> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363 (takes 0.92 and trunk as
> well)
>

These have been committed:

> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5377
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364
>
>

Jon.

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sure Stack. I will do it.  Also let me see if any issues could go into the
next RC.
I probably think we have another one or two in store.

Regards
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download

Ram:

I'd say go ahead and roll a new RC.

I tried to convince Jon that this RC was no worse that previous
releases off this branch and that we could fix the licensing issue in
the next point release but he is not having it.

While its true we could outvote him, as the rules allow, in general I
think it healthier all around if there are no votes against a release
when it goes out.  Its tough enough finding volunteers to spend some
time evaluating candidates as it is; if someone has taken the time to
play with the release as its plain Jon has then I'd say lets respect
their opinion.

Good on you Ram,
St.Ack

P.S. Let me sign the artifacts before you announce the next candidate;
I'll download them and play with them to evaluate them and if
basically good, will do the signing.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Jon
>
> Yes Jon I am fine with it.  If I get +1 on this RC then I will release the
> RC3 as the final version.  If I don't get then I will take another RC with
> your changes.
>
> Thanks Jon.  Have a joyful vacation. (smile)
>
> Regards
> Ram
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Hsieh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 6:01 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download
>
> Ram,
>
> Sounds perfect.
>
> You've asked to freeze the 0.90 branch.  Is it cool if I commit two
> rat/license related patches onto the 0.90 branch later today?  (I'm going
> to be away from computer for a few weeks -- long needed vacation).
>
> Jon.
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jon
>>
>> First of all thanks a lot for working on the license issues.
>>
>> As discussed with Stack the key signing part he said he can do it.
>> Currently for the 0.90.6RC3 only you have voted.  I received 2 +1s on RC2
>> only.
>> If you can commit your changes once again we can take another RC for
> 0.90.6
>> but it may delay the release further.
>> So in another 2 days we get more +1s then we go ahead with this Rc3,  if
>> not
>> take another RC with your recent JIRAs and release that one.
>>
>> Does that sound ok ? Good on you Jon.
>>
>> Regards
>> Ram
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jonathan Hsieh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:54 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download
>>
>> Hey Ram,
>>
>> You are the release manager so you get to decide if on the status of the
>> 0.90.6 release. I believe we have a workaround for the key signing bit.
 I
>> believe the rules say a sufficient condition for a release is to have at
>> least 3 formal pmc +1's as long as there are more +1's than -1's.  (There
>> is no veto on releases).
>>
>> I've created patches that make rat run when you add a -Prelease profile
to
>> the 0.90.x build and also a patch the fixes the licenses making rat pass.
>>  If these are applied my current -1 vote will turn into a +1.
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363 (takes 0.92 and trunk as
>> well)
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5377
>>
>> Also, the license fixes for 0.92/trunk were fairly trivial and I'll give
>> Elliot credit for them on that patch:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364
>>
>> Jon.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I've filed a jira to add rat check to the build
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363
>> >
>> > And to fix the licenses:
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5364
wrote:
to

Hey Ram,

Thanks for doing this.  For some projects I've been involved with in the
incubator, the license stuff is something a lot of apache veterans care
about strongly.

Jon.

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Sure Stack. I will do it.  Also let me see if any issues could go into the
> next RC.
> I probably think we have another one or two in store.
>
> Regards
> Ram
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:16 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download
>
> Ram:
>
> I'd say go ahead and roll a new RC.
>
> I tried to convince Jon that this RC was no worse that previous
> releases off this branch and that we could fix the licensing issue in
> the next point release but he is not having it.
>
> While its true we could outvote him, as the rules allow, in general I
> think it healthier all around if there are no votes against a release
> when it goes out.  Its tough enough finding volunteers to spend some
> time evaluating candidates as it is; if someone has taken the time to
> play with the release as its plain Jon has then I'd say lets respect
> their opinion.
>
> Good on you Ram,
> St.Ack
>
> P.S. Let me sign the artifacts before you announce the next candidate;
> I'll download them and play with them to evaluate them and if
> basically good, will do the signing.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Jon
> >
> > Yes Jon I am fine with it.  If I get +1 on this RC then I will release
> the
> > RC3 as the final version.  If I don't get then I will take another RC
> with
> > your changes.
> >
> > Thanks Jon.  Have a joyful vacation. (smile)
> >
> > Regards
> > Ram
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Hsieh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 6:01 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download
> >
> > Ram,
> >
> > Sounds perfect.
> >
> > You've asked to freeze the 0.90 branch.  Is it cool if I commit two
> > rat/license related patches onto the 0.90 branch later today?  (I'm going
> > to be away from computer for a few weeks -- long needed vacation).
> >
> > Jon.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Jon
> >>
> >> First of all thanks a lot for working on the license issues.
> >>
> >> As discussed with Stack the key signing part he said he can do it.
> >> Currently for the 0.90.6RC3 only you have voted.  I received 2 +1s on
> RC2
> >> only.
> >> If you can commit your changes once again we can take another RC for
> > 0.90.6
> >> but it may delay the release further.
> >> So in another 2 days we get more +1s then we go ahead with this Rc3,  if
> >> not
> >> take another RC with your recent JIRAs and release that one.
> >>
> >> Does that sound ok ? Good on you Jon.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Ram
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jonathan Hsieh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:54 AM
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Subject: Re: ANN: 0.90.6 RC3 available for download
> >>
> >> Hey Ram,
> >>
> >> You are the release manager so you get to decide if on the status of the
> >> 0.90.6 release. I believe we have a workaround for the key signing bit.
>  I
> >> believe the rules say a sufficient condition for a release is to have at
> >> least 3 formal pmc +1's as long as there are more +1's than -1's.
>  (There
> >> is no veto on releases).
> >>
> >> I've created patches that make rat run when you add a -Prelease profile
> to
> >> the 0.90.x build and also a patch the fixes the licenses making rat
> pass.
> >>  If these are applied my current -1 vote will turn into a +1.
> >>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5363 (takes 0.92 and trunk
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure Stack. I will do it.  Also let me see if any issues could go into the
> next RC.
> I probably think we have another one or two in store.
>
I committed hbase-5363 to 0.90 Ram so you should be good to go w/ a new RC.
Thanks boss,
St.Ack