On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 21.10.2014 06:34, Alex Harui wrote:
>> What is the piece I’m missing that says we have to vote to update the
>> binary package?
>
> Apparently the Flex community believes that convenience binaries need
> votes. They don't, but aside from th
Let me see if I can tie all of the responses back into one thread.
Thanks Ross, for confirming that vote periods can be shorter. However,
there still isn’t enough time to get through vote + mirror latency before
Tuesday in San Francisco.
I think Ted just said I can update the binary package but
Ok. Well remember that the release vote period is a guideline. If this is such
a trivial change maybe it would be acceptable to use a shorter vote period. As
long as you have three +1 (meaning three people have verified the release) you
would be good to go, without long debates about policy and
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> So I am looking for reasons why we can/can’t
> update a binary package in less time than the whole vote + mirrors latency.
>
I think you can. Just label it according to what it is. You can even
link from the web site.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> >Then this is the Acme Software Foundation installer and you can do what
> >you
> >like.
> I suppose we could, but it wouldn’t be easily found by folks who arrive at
> flex.a.o looking for FlexJS. They’ll probably end up using the current
> In
On 21.10.2014 06:34, Alex Harui wrote:
> What is the piece I’m missing that says we have to vote to update the
> binary package?
Apparently the Flex community believes that convenience binaries need
votes. They don't, but aside from that, if you guys are already voting
on binary packages, it makes
Sorry, my last response crossed paths with this.
We can and will make another release, but no, it was only 24 hours ago
that we realized we might get a bump in installs from the talk on Tuesday
and only 10 hours since I proved we could workaround the problem with a
change to the binary package. N
On 10/20/14, 5:54 PM, "Ted Dunning" wrote:
>
>Why not just roll your own installer that has these additional options?
>
>Then this is the Acme Software Foundation installer and you can do what
>you
>like.
I suppose we could, but it wouldn’t be easily found by folks who arrive at
flex.a.o lookin
Regardless of whether you can/can't do this (others are commentating, I won't
add to that) - wouldn't it be easier to just build a release and call a vote.
My guess is that you spent more than three days from identification of the
problem to distribution and discussion here. Remember, if you tak
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> >If he wants to build his own installer, fine. If it says it is
> >downloading
> >an Apache artifact, it should be voted.
> The Installer has a DropDown list of releases, such as “Apache Flex SDK
> 4.13.0” and “Apache FlexJS 0.0.2”. What if t
On 10/20/14, 4:57 PM, "Ted Dunning" wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Justin Mclean
>wrote:
>
>> > 4) you aren't claiming that the artifact you created is an Apache
>>release
>> > and you are pointing some workshop participants at your release.
>>
>> My understanding is Alex does want t
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> > 4) you aren't claiming that the artifact you created is an Apache release
> > and you are pointing some workshop participants at your release.
>
> My understanding is Alex does want to use this as an official release and
> have the officia
Hi,
> 3) you created a correct distribution artifact and put it somewhere
> non-Apache
The modified binary has been placed in his Apache account [1] and AFAIK he
wants to move it to the official a.o/dist release area without a vote or
alternatively distribute it directly from there (to avoid wa
On 10/20/14, 4:13 PM, "Ted Dunning" wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>> I know we can’t go messing around with source packages without a vote,
>>but
>> what about binary packages? Is it against policy to do something like
>> this, and if so, can exceptions be made?
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> I know we can’t go messing around with source packages without a vote, but
> what about binary packages? Is it against policy to do something like
> this, and if so, can exceptions be made?
>
I may not have followed this quite correctly, here
Hi,
I’m wondering whether modifications to the set of bundled jars in a
convenience binary package can be made after release without voting.
And if not, I’m looking for any other quick-fix ideas for the following
scenario.
Flex has many different release packages. One is an SDK called FlexJS
0.
On behalf of the Taverna community, thank you for all your support!
On 20 October 2014 08:46, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>
> This VOTE passes with 13 +1 binding votes
>
> Suresh Marru
> Alan D. Cabrera
> jan I
> Ralph Goers
> Bertrand Delacretaz
> Andy Seaborne
> Sure
To: general@incubator.apache.org
This VOTE passes with 13 +1 binding votes
Suresh Marru
Alan D. Cabrera
jan I
Ralph Goers
Bertrand Delacretaz
Andy Seaborne
Suresh Srinivas
Chris Mattmann
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
Jake Farrel
Leif Hedstrom
Jean-Louis Monteiro
Roman Shaposhnik
and no 0's or -1's
I'll
18 matches
Mail list logo
