cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Savva Kolbachev <s.kolbac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] 4.0.M5 release v2
Date Tue, 28 Feb 2017 18:22:36 GMT
As I remember we already did several voting attempts before (3 attempts for
4.0.M2 and 2 attempts for 4.0.M3) and there were no confusions. I think
it's okay to keep the same release version in such situations.

Looks like this time the confusion comes from the "[VOTE] 4.0.M5 release
v2" subject of the mail thread that has been treated as voting for
4.0.M5-v2 or something. Yeah, it's definitely better to have clearer
subject like "[VOTE] 4.0.M5 second attempt" etc.

If we don't want to have several voting attempts for the same release
version, I think we could discuss it in the different thread. But in this
case I would suggest to continue voting as we don't have frequent releases
and each of them is a party :)

I have been able to successfully check the release, so here is my +1.

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Andrus Adamchik <andrus@objectstyle.org>
wrote:

>
> > On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Nikita Timofeev <ntimofeev@objectstyle.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm published new files for 4.0.M5 release and you can start voting
> (again).
> > The only difference should be fix for CAY-2242.
> >
> > Here are links:
> > Maven: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> orgapachecayenne-1013
> > Assemblies: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cayenne/4.0.M5/
> >
> > Sorry for inconvenience, hope this one will be promoted to the official
> release.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Nikita Timofeev
>
> I ran through my usual checklist:
>
> 1. MD5 matches
> 2. Signature checks
> 3. rat passes
> 4. LICENSE and NOTICE files present in the root of the distro
> 5. builds from source
> 6. Modeler runs on OS X
> 7. Cross-platform Modeler runs on OS X
> 8. Modeler runs on Windows
>
> Everything passed successfully. Additionally I tried upgrading LinkRest
> and LinkMove frameworks on local branches using the staging Maven repo. It
> worked flawlessly (though we need to mention in the UPGRADE.txt that Derby
> PK generator has been switched to sequences from AUTO_PK_TABLE. This did
> affect one of the LinkMove tests).
>
> My vote is +1.
>
> Andrus
>
>
>
>


-- 
Best Regards,
Savva Kolbachev

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message