Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 19414 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2007 21:10:33 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Jul 2007 21:10:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 44358 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jul 2007 21:10:06 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 44237 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jul 2007 21:10:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: Delivered-To: mailing list derby-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 44228 invoked by uid 99); 19 Jul 2007 21:10:05 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:10:05 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [68.142.198.211] (HELO smtp112.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (68.142.198.211) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:10:00 -0700 Received: (qmail 89750 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2007 21:09:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.254.246?) (ddebrunner@sbcglobal.net@75.26.5.169 with plain) by smtp112.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Jul 2007 21:09:30 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: BizsUyYVM1kZunAL1xeUm8WIUpU9YKfMtk8wVe4W4O0o7Tx2 Message-ID: <469FD28A.20402@apache.org> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:07:22 -0700 From: Daniel John Debrunner User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: derby-dev@db.apache.org Subject: Re: again, another 10.3.1. release candidate? References: <469FC216.4000105@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <469FC216.4000105@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Stanley Bradbury wrote: > As I indicated with my [-1] vote to the 10.3.1.2 VOTE thread: I need the > fix for Derby-2896 to be part of official 10.3 release - this requires > that new release candidtate be created (presumably 10.3.1.3?) Just a gentle reminder, no-one can veto a release. Thus anyone's desires for a specific bug to be fixed do not impose any requirement on a release manager. It is ok for a release to proceed "ignoring" -1 votes as long as it has the required number of +1 PMC votes. Though, I think if a release does have -1 votes that it is wise for the release manager to consider them before putting the release on the mirrors. Dan.