Hi Ben,
> I think that you're right to include the wave in full for a first pass.. So
> the email would include three parts "text/plain", "text/html" &
> "application/wave"
>
> The above thou may make the email huge in some cases where its a public
> wave or there are lots of participants, would i
Happy to attend the meeting. 2pm UTC is good to me.
2015-04-07 10:16 GMT+02:00 Upayavira :
> Thanks for this, Evan.
>
> Given it was you that proposed the Hangout, it would seem reasonable
> that we try to accommodate you. Anyone here have any objections to an
> earlier concall, say, 2pm UTC? Are
Are all 7 of those vores binding?
Do we really need a vote for fixing the name?
Ali
On 9 Apr 2015 08:02, "Yuri Z" wrote:
> Hi
> The vote should be over with +7 votes. However it looks like I messed up
> artifacts names - they should include "incubating" according to
> https://incubator.apache.o
I meant "votes".
On 9 Apr 2015 10:49, "Ali Lown" wrote:
> Are all 7 of those vores binding?
>
> Do we really need a vote for fixing the name?
>
> Ali
> On 9 Apr 2015 08:02, "Yuri Z" wrote:
>
>> Hi
>> The vote should be over with +7 votes. However it looks like I messed up
>> artifacts names - th
Hi
The vote should be over with +7 votes. However it looks like I messed up
artifacts names - they should include "incubating" according to
https://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#naming
I guess I ll create new artifacts with fixed names and post a new release
vote...
On Wed, Ap
RC8 is now available for review.
It's basically RC7 with artifact names fixed to include "incubating"
Artifacts can be found here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/wave/0.8-incubating/
(Remember checksums are from 'gpg --print-md SHA512 $f > $f.sha')
The release version will be: 0.
+1
However, I am still very confused by the link saying it's 0.8 and the
artifacts saying it's 0.4.
Are we sure this is what we want? It might pass the IPMC also because
naming the release is not something which can/should be blocked, but it
might confuse users.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015, at 21:49, Yur
It's release candidate 8 for version 0.4.0 alpha. If you think we should
name it something else - let me know.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:35 PM Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> +1
>
> However, I am still very confused by the link saying it's 0.8 and the
> artifacts saying it's 0.4.
> Are we sure this
I think that you're right to include the wave in full for a first pass.. So
the email would include three parts "text/plain", "text/html" &
"application/wave"
The above thou may make the email huge in some cases where its a public
wave or there are lots of participants, would it be better for the
Thanks Yuri for bringing this up.
I missed that part, and you are right, having the -incubation part is
mandatory.
Ali: I think it is better to stay formal in this case. We are voting on
the "exact stuff", and changing a name, somehow changes things. I am
pretty sure it would be complained about
10 matches
Mail list logo
