Mailing-List: contact dev-help@felix.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@felix.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of heavy@ungoverned.org
 designates 69.89.22.17 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=ungoverned.org;
	h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User;
	b=l/hPUM6AD4QGHbVzqpbKxpBKqQa4GVkS2ADR1S6M6YDhHRJw6xOfDjH4tB6dXu1bSuY+YVnKcXhfWRxqqBv6d07gz2EZc1MzGC/mRh9i1gFG7CevvZiGXZ2uYotbqCqg;
Message-ID: <489C6B9F.6030504@ungoverned.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:51:59 -0400
From: "Richard S. Hall" <heavy@ungoverned.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@felix.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Vote] release maven-bundle-plugin 1.4.3
References: <81f0d9c0808071101j2ad6f4eeuacc0fc6517cdeec6@mail.gmail.com>
 <81f0d9c0808080809q15d57d53lf2a0b4e0d2ccd5c9@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <81f0d9c0808080809q15d57d53lf2a0b4e0d2ccd5c9@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Stuart McCulloch wrote:
> 2008/8/8 Stuart McCulloch <mcculls@gmail.com>
>
>   
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Hot on the heels of 1.4.2, I'd like to start a vote for the 1.4.3 release
>> of
>> the maven-bundle-plugin, which contains a combined fix for FELIX-661.
>> (part of this fix required minor patches to code from other components)
>>
>> I've built and signed the release candidate and made it available here:
>>
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~mcculls/releases/felix/maven-bundle-plugin/org/apache/felix/maven-bundle-plugin/1.4.3<http://people.apache.org/%7Emcculls/releases/felix/maven-bundle-plugin/org/apache/felix/maven-bundle-plugin/1.4.3>
>>
>> You can also find the KEYS file for verifying the signature in this
>> directory.
>> So, please check the release and cast your votes. (vote will run for
>> 72hrs)
>>
>>     
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm flying to Tokyo this weekend, so I'm thinking of calling
> this vote a bit early - any objections? so far it's all been +1
> and there are enough binding +1s
>
> otherwise are there any volunteers to upload this release
> to the various servers once the 72hr period has passed :)
>   

There was only the one change, right? I don't have any objections, but I 
am not sure if we are under obligation to hold the vote open for three 
days or not.

-> richard