+1 builds and tests with 8 and 11
signatures good
reports all look reasonable
(nit -> can we get japicmp implemented here?)
> On Jun 23, 2021, at 5:44 AM, Henri Biestro wrote:
>
>
> I know 3.2 was just (barely) released but it had been a long time (and a long
> list of issues) so unfortunat
Early pre-check looks fine on site and reports.
Cheers
On 2021/06/23 02:10:16, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> FYI, I plan on cutting a release candidate soon.
>
> Gary
>
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons
Similarly I will try to review today.
-Rob
> On Jun 23, 2021, at 6:39 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> The vote did not fail yet. The minium vote time window has just gone by. I
> will try to review later today.
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021, 05:44 Henri Biestro wrote:
>
>>
>> I know 3.2 wa
The vote did not fail yet. The minium vote time window has just gone by. I
will try to review later today.
Gary
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021, 05:44 Henri Biestro wrote:
>
> I know 3.2 was just (barely) released but it had been a long time (and a
> long list of issues) so unfortunately, regressions crep
[x] +1 Release these artifacts
At the top of the RELEASE-NOTES.txt, it's showing "Version 3.2". Shouldn't it
be "Version 3.2.1"? Or do we skip the bug fix part? Not a blocker I think...
In the generated site (locally, and dist area) there are links to Javadocs for
v1.1, v2.2.1, and v3.2. Do
I know 3.2 was just (barely) released but it had been a long time (and a long
list of issues) so unfortunately, regressions crept in. Sorry to bug you all
(pun unintended).
I guess the vote will fail for lack of voters - not because anyone has anything
to object, just because no-one had the t
