commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Daemon 1.0.2 based on RC2
Date Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:42:42 GMT
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Henri Yandell <flamefew@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Fair enough. That is what http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> says, though I don't recall this list not working to consensus for a
> release.

*sigh*... late. That sounds petulant :)

I just meant that it's not been the style afaik up to now. No
implication either way - we'll adapt.

Hen

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


Mime
View raw message