commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Barker" <billwbar...@verizon.net>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Daemon 1.0.2 based on RC2
Date Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:00:59 GMT


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Mark Thomas" <markt@apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 1:30 AM
To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Daemon 1.0.2 based on RC2

> On 24/02/2010 09:05, Henri Yandell wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Henri Yandell<flamefew@gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Bill Barker<billwbarker@verizon.net>

>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>> From: "jean-frederic clere"<jfclere@gmail.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 11:48 PM
>>>> To:<dev@commons.apache.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Daemon 1.0.2 based on RC2
>>>>
>>>>> On 02/23/2010 09:02 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Daemon RC2 fixes some minor distribution issues over the
>>>>>> previous RC1 proposal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RC2 Release is here:
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~mturk/daemon/
>>>>>> Tag is here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/daemon/tags/COMMONS_DAEMON_1_0_2_RC2/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If voted for a release the COMMONS_DAEMON_1_0_2_RC2 tag will
>>>>>> be copied to COMMONS_DAEMON_1_0_2 and released as such.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------
>>>>>> [X] +1  I support this release
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so we have three people listed as developers for this project 
>>>> approving
>>>> the release, including the author of the three remaining disputed 
>>>> files. Can
>>>> we get a couple more votes, to actually release this?
>>>
>>> Is the objection to the -1 that the files should never contain the AL
>>> header, or is the objection that it shouldn't be a release blocker?
>>
>> Scratch that - I see that the files have had headers added by Bill.
>>
>> Sebb - I don't think this is a release blocker. The three Makefiles
>> are pretty piddly, and it's fixed for a subsequent version. Wondering
>> if you can reconsider on your -1.
>
> It doesn't matter. Releases can not be vetoed. Period.
>
> At my count this release has three +1 votes and one -1 vote. That is 
> sufficient for a release. It is up to the release manager to decide if the 
> issues raised by the -1 vote are sufficient to stop the release or if they 
> want to go ahead with the release. Unless I have completely misunderstood 
> Mladen's views, he wants to go ahead with this and he now has the votes to 
> do so.
>

yes, but as I've stated before, my vote doesn't count (only PMC member's 
votes count, and I'm only a commiter to commons).  It still needs at least 
one more binding +1 to pass.

> Mark
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message