woops thought monday was the cutoff On 18 October 2015 at 12:33, Zachary Yaro <zmy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would have cast a vote, but I read non-binding votes were discouraged. > To clarify, what are the criteria for being able to cast a binding vote for > this project? > > Zachary Yaro > > On 17 October 2015 at 21:48, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Thanks to Yuri and Jeremy for downloading and trying out this RC. > > > > Well, I set a "deadline" around the 17th October which has now well > > and truly passed. > > > > My vote on the matter was a +1 (though I realize that I failed to put > > this in my original email, so you are allowed to ignore this for > > failing to meet my own deadline). > > > > The result looks something like (including mine): > > +1: 3 (2 binding) > > +0: 0 > > -0: 0 > > -1: 0 > > > > Unfortunately we have had insufficient votes to meet the release > > requirement (minimum of 3 +1 binding votes, more + than -) [0]. > > Binding votes as decided by people in [1]. > > > > @Yuri/Jeremy: How do you feel now about us moving away from Apache, as > > this vote does seem to suggest that there is not enough interest from > > the currently defined committers to maintain this project here. > > > > I am not really sure why none of the other committers responded at all > > to the vote... > > > > Ali > > > > [0]: > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#votes-on-code-modification > > [1]: https://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#wave > > > > On 14 October 2015 at 17:27, Jérémy Naegel <jeremy....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > > > +Jérémy Naegel <http://google.com/+JérémyNaegel > <http://google.com/+J%C3%A9r%C3%A9myNaegel> > > <http://google.com/+J%C3%A9r%C3%A9myNaegel>> > > > Public Information Officer > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> +1 > > >> I did the following: > > >> - Checked signatures > > >> - Opened the binary and verified it works. > > >> - Opened the source and verified that it can be built and works. > > >> - Reviewed the changes for the rc 10. > > >> > > >> Ali - Thanks for making this RC! > > >> > > >> On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 9:59 AM Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hi all, > > >> > > > >> > RC10 is now available for review. > > >> > Artefacts can be found here: > > >> > https://people.apache.org/~al/wave_rc/0.4-rc10/ > > >> > (Remember checksums are from 'gpg --print-md SHA512 $f > $f.sha') > > >> > > > >> > I have included both source and binary artefacts for convenience. > > >> > > > >> > The release version (if successful) will be 0.4.0-incubating > > >> > > > >> > This is taken from the branch 0.4.0-rc10 of the incubator-wave > > >> repository. > > >> > > > >> > Notable changes since earlier initial release attempts include: > > >> > - Use of typesafe config > > >> > - Bumped versions of Jetty, GWT, etc. > > >> > - Assorted tweaks to build system > > >> > > > >> > A summary of useful information can be found in RELEASE-NOTES, and a > > >> > list of changes in CHANGES in the source artefacts. > > >> > > > >> > Action Required: > > >> > Please go and test these packages (most importantly the source ones) > > >> > for any outstanding legal problems, or any runtime problems in a > > >> > 'standard' configuration. > > >> > > > >> > We are not looking for a perfect first release, as there is plenty > of > > >> > time to fix outstanding bugs in future releases, but we do want to > get > > >> > 0.4 out soon (at long last). > > >> > > > >> > This vote will close around 0000 GMT 17th October 2015. > > >> > > > >> > [ ] +1 Release it! > > >> > [ ] +0 Ok, but... > > >> > [ ] -0 Ok, but you really should fix... > > >> > [ ] -1 Definitely do not release this because... > > >> > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > Ali > > >> > > > >> > > >
