On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:33 PM, sebb wrote:
> Not sure I understand why the checklist needs to be specific.
The checklist should include only items which might block the release of the
artifacts under review. Expanding it to include unrelated concerns imposes an
unnecessary cost each time someo
Hello all,
Closing the vote since 72 hours have passed.
With the required 3 IPMC votes and no -1s, this vote passes.
+1s (binding - IPMC )
Alan Gates
Olivier Lamy
Arun C Murthy
+1s (non-binding)
Hitesh Shah
Lianhui Wang
Mike Liddell
Cheolsoo Park
Siddharth Seth
Mark Wagner
Tsuyoshi Ozawa
Gunt
Hi,
Apologies for returning to this after one week, but I have been on vacation.
I am not against this experiment in general, especially after Bertrand's later
clarification.
I am against the experiment in VXQuery's case because Till has already been
made an IPMC member under the prior experim
On Nov 27, 2013, at 2:41 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>>> I am not sure that this is a step in the correct direction.
>>
>> Dave, I'm sure you realize that your opposition is d
Marvin,
I applaud your efforts here. If we are going to take PPMC release votes as
binding then we should be sure that these are up to standards. Even if we
don't this is still very valuable.
One note I have is I don't think we should be teaching that some of release
steps are "optional" when
On 1 December 2013 19:09, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:33 PM, sebb wrote:
>> Not sure I understand why the checklist needs to be specific.
>
> The checklist should include only items which might block the release of the
> artifacts under review. Expanding it to include unre
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> One note I have is I don't think we should be teaching that some of release
> steps are "optional" when they are required.
Don't get me wrong -- I would actually prefer to make each PPMC member do the
work for each item. The main rationale beh
Hi,
I'd like to release Apache Sirona 0.1-incubating.
Release notes:
http://sirona.incubator.apache.org/releases/release-notes-0.1-incubating.html
Vote result from dev@sirona:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-sirona-dev/201312.mbox/browser
Maven staged release repository:
htt
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 3:46 PM, sebb wrote:
>> Can you live with this second draft?
>
> I don't understand what this means:
>
> ASF copyright correct in each top-level NOTICE.
>
> Why is it necessary in addition to the following?
>
> Top-level LICENSE and NOTICE correct for each distribution.
On 12/1/13 4:47 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> One note I have is I don't think we should be teaching that some of
>>release
>> steps are "optional" when they are required.
>
>Don't get me wrong -- I would actually prefer to make each PPMC m
On Dec 1, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> One note I have is I don't think we should be teaching that some of release
>> steps are "optional" when they are required.
>
> Don't get me wrong -- I would actually prefer to make each P
11 matches
Mail list logo