Thanks Lars. Good perspective. Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 8, 2014, at 21:45, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > - Downloaded bin and -src tarballs. > - Not knowing much about the internals of Drill (yet), I poked around in the > tarballs, looks all good. > - Ran some of the examples. > - All looks good. Packaging is clean. > > Few comments: > - I would probably prefer the documentation to be part of either the bin or > src tarball, seems that should be part of the distribution. > - The documentation on > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DRILL/Apache+Drill+in+10+Minutes#ApacheDrillin10Minutes-StartDrill > is a bit outdated > (refers to release 0.4.0 at points) > > As for the Java8/Unittest failure discussion. IMHO a release does not need to > be free of bugs (that's not actually possible anyway), > it just means it is useful "snaphot" of the software. In any case this is an > important discussion to have. > (As the HBase 0.94 release manager I introduced a strict monthly release > cadence and we found that far more useful then getting all > the last fixes in - those just have to wait a month. Only for critical > correctness issues did I delay a release for a few days. > > Obviously that is just my opinion.) > > Thanks. > > -- Lars > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> > To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> > Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 12:52 PM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release > > > +1 (binding) > > I have downloaded the code, compiled and run the tests. > > I also checked all checksums, and verified the signatures. I also verified > that the signing key was signed by people I trust (and indeed, by me as > well) and correctly propagated to the gpg key servers. > > I also reviewed in both the source and binary that the various notices, > licenses and dependency lists appear to be correct. The license files also > appear to be correct and include the correct attributions. I have > previously checked that the list of dependencies and attributions was both > correct and complete and since these are generated automatically, I did not > specifically check them again. Moreover, the dependencies have not changed > so this gives even higher confidence in this assessment. > > It should be noted that Drill as a project has been able to produce several > high quality releases in a row with different release managers. Moreover, > Drill has invested in documentation to help train release managers to help > grow the community. > > > > > > >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:41 AM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Hi. >> >> I have had a look at your release and it looks good, I could not find any >> formal errors. >> >> But I took a closer look at the release vote thread, because a failing unit >> test is a serious bad quality signal for me. >> >> Whenever I test new software, I download it, build it, then run all test >> cases to secure I got it build correctly, where I assume I have made >> something wrong if a test case fails. >> >> Apache is known for quality software and I think we all want to keep that >> image. I am sure the project does not take quality lightly, but the >> attitude "can be fixed later" especially with unit tests is to me not a >> good policy. >> >> If the software only runs with 1.7 and not higher, then why not make a >> simple startup version check, then there would be no problem (of course its >> even better to solve the problem). I just wonder how this error will affect >> people using the project. >> >> It seems (from the vote thread) you already have solved the problem, but >> dont want to wait for a respin, can you please at least explain why the >> project is under such a time constraint, that 72 hours is too long to wait >> to make good quality. >> >> I wanted to give the release a -1 but decided to give >> >> -0 binding. >> >> in the hope the PMC will go for quality and voluntary respin the release. >> >> rgds >> jan i >> >> >> >>> On 7 October 2014 07:09, Steven Phillips <sphill...@maprtech.com> wrote: >>> >>> In case there is any confusion, the first email sent out in this thread >> had >>> the wrong vote count. The second one has the correct count: >>> >>> +9 binding >>> +3 non-binding >>> >>> I should also mention there was one -0 (binding). This was due to unit >> test >>> failures when using java 1.8. Jiras were filed, and the fix will be >>> included in the next release, not this one. >>> >>>> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Steven Phillips <s...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> I would like to present the Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release to >>>> the general incubator list for a vote. This set of artifacts have >> passed >>>> our drill-dev vote and incorporate a number of improvements with over >> 30 >>>> JIRAs closed in the last month. >>>> >>>> The vote thread can be found here: >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-drill-dev/201410.mbox/%3CCAA_-67fAJFB20wGX462wm7BYvoSy3PvydCPgY9uNSEj3HpQRmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E >>>> >>>> The vote passed with: >>>> +9 binding >>>> +3 non-binding >>>> >>>> You can find the artifacts for the release at this location: >>> http://people.apache.org/~smp/apache-drill-0.6.0.rc0/ >>>> >>>> I look forward to your feedback. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Steven >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Steven Phillips >>> Software Engineer >>> >>> mapr.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
