[ x] +1 Release these artifacts
[ ] +0 OK, but...
[ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
[ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
(non binding)
I only tested the binary, ran up two instances - verified each
independently with two users on each, and then federated from A to B and
B to A.
Everything as expected - 0.4 (or trunk) doesn't include Ali's latest
fixes, so federated live editing works, but with an immediate shiny.
0.4 isn't focusing on functionality so I'm +1, but if we for roll for
another RC it might be worth bringing those fixes over from Ali's branch?
Dave
On 12/06/13 13:06, Pratik Paranjape wrote:
+1
tested on Ubuntu 12.10.
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Michael MacFadden <
michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote:
Posting the message on the right thread this time hopefully.
I did test the latest RC on OSX. I also looked through the licensing and
the packaging.
+1
~Michael
I tested the real ease candidate on OSX. I also looked through the
packaging. I give it a +1.
~Michael
On Jun 9, 2013, at 12:48 AM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
+0
This is an unusual vote for me which I must explain. For non-incubator
PMC members, your vote says you've done your best, which is plenty good
enough. For me as an incubator PMC member, I would be stating that I
have reviewed it according to the release standards which, due to
insufficient knowledge I cannot do.
Therefore I am voting +0 to say I am supportive of the effort that has
been done here, believe the right things to have been done, but would
rather defer to a more knowledgable Incubator PMC member when it comes
to a formal vote.
Fell free to include the above sentence in the vote summary.
I will also make this point on the incubator vote thread when it comes.
Perhaps this vote is the one where *I* get up to speed on Apache
licensing.
Upayavira
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013, at 11:40 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
+1 (IPMC)
I didn't find anything else so far which is problematic. My guess is,
other IPMC members will find something (first releases are worst)
I checked on licenses, signatures, sha and looked around. I didn't do
technical checks, like running the server or so. My take on pre 1.0
version is, they are unstable. So I would not block a release when
something crashes or so.
Cheers
Christian
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Ali Lown <a...@apache.org> wrote:
Lets try again with this then...
Wave 0.4 RC3 is available for review here:
https://people.apache.org/~al/wave_rc/0.4-rc3/
This is a build from the subversion tag wave-0.4-rc3 at:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wave/tags/
A summary can be found in the RELEASE-NOTES at:
https://people.apache.org/~al/wave_rc/0.4-rc3/RELEASE-NOTES
and included in the tarballs.
Votes, please. This vote will close at 2000 GMT 8-June 2013.
[ ] +1 Release these artifacts
[ ] +0 OK, but...
[ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
[ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
Thanks.
Ali
---------------------------
The 'minor note' again for those still confused: Only votes from
the members of the PMC are binding, however votes from other
committers, users, and contributors are welcomed. If your vote is
negative, please leave a comment explaining clearly why. Refer to
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html for more information on
this process.
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de
