spark-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: 2.1.2 maintenance release?
Date Fri, 08 Sep 2017 16:01:44 GMT
There's no problem that I'm aware of with a non-PMC member volunteering to
be release manager. I was RM for a couple Avro releases without being on
the PMC, and this is done regularly in the incubator where IPMC members
have binding votes, but someone in the incubating community is the RM.

We want to encourage exactly this kind of involvement in order to grow the
PMC. This is like how we want everyone---not just committers---to review
pull requests or how anyone can vote on a release even if it isn't a
binding vote. We never want PMC membership to be a bar that prevents anyone
from participating, it just means that someone has demonstrated enough
merit that they have the community's trust for votes on releases or new
committers.

rb

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Felix Cheung <felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 on both 2.1.2 and 2.2.1
>
> And would try to help and/or wrangle the release if needed.
>
> (Note: trying to backport a few changes to branch-2.1 right now)
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Sean Owen <sowen@cloudera.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, September 8, 2017 12:05:28 AM
> *To:* Holden Karau; dev
> *Subject:* Re: 2.1.2 maintenance release?
>
> Let's look at the standard ASF guidance, which actually surprised me when
> I first read it:
>
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> VOTES ON PACKAGE RELEASES
> Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval
> -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and
> there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be
> vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone
> identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies
> with the individual serving as release manager. The specifics of the
> process may vary from project to project, but the 'minimum quorum of three
> +1 votes' rule is universal.
>
>
> PMC votes on it, but no vetoes allowed, and the release manager makes the
> final call. Not your usual vote! doesn't say the release manager has to be
> part of the PMC though it's the role with most decision power. In practice
> I can't imagine it's a problem, but we could also just have someone on the
> PMC technically be the release manager even as someone else is really
> operating the release.
>
> The goal is, really, to be able to put out maintenance releases with
> important fixes. Secondly, to ramp up one or more additional people to
> perform the release steps. Maintenance releases ought to be the least
> controversial releases to decide.
>
> Thoughts on kicking off a release for 2.1.2 to see how it goes?
>
> Although someone can just start following the steps, I think it will
> certainly require some help from Michael, who's run the last release, to
> clarify parts of the process or possibly provide an essential credential to
> upload artifacts.
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:59 PM Holden Karau <holden@pigscanfly.ca> wrote:
>
>> I'd be happy to manage the 2.1.2 maintenance release (and 2.2.1 after
>> that) if people are ok with a committer / me running the release process
>> rather than a full PMC member.
>>
>


-- 
Ryan Blue
Software Engineer
Netflix

Mime
View raw message