Folks
For the 4.2 release cycle a huge and commendable effort was made by the community to stick to the time-based release while delivering 85 new features and improvement and resolving over 1800 defects. I recognize the disappointment that Marcus and Simon have expressed over not including the CLVM fix for 4.2 and appreciate Simon being open to pick up the fix and apply locally. The fix will be rolled into 4.2.1 maintenance release. The 4.2 release note will call out clearly the CLVM issue in release notes. Going by the VOTE results and sticking to time based release and the principle of release early and release often I have decided to proceed with releasing 4.2. I will close the VOTE out officially in separate RESULTS email. I will start a separate thread to discuss the maintenance release 4.2.1 Thanks Animesh > -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 9:05 PM > To: <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round) > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Mathias Mullins > <mathias.mull...@citrix.com>wrote: > > > Technically I don't see any binding -1 vetoes being declared. Animesh > > is correct on this. > > > > > I don't have to write "Binding" next to my vote. Votes are technically > "binding" when the person voting is considered to have binding vote. > > Also, -1 is not a veto. It's a vote! Unless this is a technical matter > (which releases are specifically excluded from), there isn't any > veto'ing... > > As a reminder, all votes (binding / PMC or otherwise) are important to > this process. They help people express opinions about the RC. > > [snip] > > > > PMC Votes - 3 +1 / 2 -1 > > > > So Animesh is correct unless Sebastien you changed your vote to a -1 > > in all of these conversations and I missed it. Remember is is Lazy > > Majority of PMC Members only. > > > > > > Cheers, > > Matt > > > > Matt's right. Animesh is now free to make a decision on his own about > this. He's got enough votes to release 4.2.0 at this point, and has > kept the thread open for more than enough time to gather input. > > As the RM (specifically... as a committer that called the vote), Animesh > can either choose to re-spin another RC to accommodate the concerns > raised (for which there happens to be a clear fix), or he can move > forward with the release promotion from dist/dev to dist/release. > > As I said in my vote, I'm -1 because we have known users that are not > going to be able to upgrade. That's my personal vote though, and it > isn't a / can't be a veto. > > -chip
