couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@tumbolia.org>
Subject Re: Voting -1 on the first sign of issues (was Re: [VOTE] Apache CouchDB 1.2.0 release, third round)
Date Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:33:36 GMT
I disagree with this.

It would be nice if people voting were able to assist, but the inability to
assist SHOULD NOT prevent you from voting either way. If there are serious
issues with the release, I want to know about them, and I WILL abort the
vote for them.

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Dave Cottlehuber <dave@muse.net.nz> wrote:

> On 26 March 2012 23:52, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> > As the person who's done the most tallying of votes over the last 4
> years.
> > I agree with Jan. Please leave your votes until you are reasonably sure
> > they will not change. You CAN change them, but it is a PITA. Thanks!
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Mar 26, 2012, at 19:34 , Sam Bisbee wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> Thank you.
> >> >>
> >> >> Happy voting,
> >> >>
> >> >> N
> >> >
> >> > I'm having issues building the artifact on a brand new, vanilla Debian
> >> > 6.0 install (built fine on Ubuntu 11.10). It stops with the "can't
> >> > find jsapi headers" error. Attached is my config.log.
> >> >
> >> > jsapi.h lives at /usr/lib/xulrunner-devel-1.9.1/include/jsapi.h as
> >> > expected. Configuring without any parameters doesn't work either.
> >> >
> >> > So until I can debug this and update the wiki with any instructions,
> >> > I'm -1 on the release.
> >>
> >> Hey all,
> >>
> >> I'd like to suggest that we might want to not vote -1 on the first
> >> sign of issues.
> >>
> >> Of course we'd like to see any error report, but I feel it'd be nice
> >> to wait for suggestions on how to fix this, rather than voting -1 or
> >> voting -1 with a condition and later having to retract that.
> >>
> >> And if it turns out to be a grave error, a -1 is very much called for.
> >>
> >> Sorry for jumping on Sam here, but this has been done before and I
> >> assume Sam just thinks it is standard procedure :)
> >>
> >> It might be me, but I know that tallying votes is less confusing with
> >> definite votes.
> >>
> >> Please disagree with me, if you think we should continue with the
> >> current practice :)
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Jan
> >> --
> >>
> >>
>
> It's worth taking a minute to read through the Apache guidelines:
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> Specifically,  Votes on Package Releases
> =\/=
> Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively
> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes.
> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the
> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases
> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release
> manager. The specifics of the process may vary from project to
> project, but the 'minimum quorum of three +1 votes' rule is universal.
> =/\=
>
> I think there's an unwritten expectation that if you're prepared to
> vote you're prepared to assist on any issues uncovered.
>
> A+
> Dave
>

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