Mailing-List: contact bloodhound-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of gstein@gmail.com designates
 209.85.219.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <506025DD.6020204@wandisco.com>
References: <50102A61.6090908@wandisco.com>
	<CABD8fLUi7sWHNbxVjc84nQ+XTXUd0x9L5YKGRBwV3dRSYhYKQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGMZAuMseje2Fbvp=vbyZanBhVA4g6cBxYBMn0w0fD1bMFbN5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABD8fLUSDbK59twbzvQKccRreaTtvxFjKomQFoo_9ad+WbU-8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BA105458-2235-468D-8D6E-914A25F8B901@wandisco.com>
	<506025DD.6020204@wandisco.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 07:18:17 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CABD8fLXfPePxoxh6wbnVaY8fjspBLDFP=ERrBaH4cj38nJjO-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.1.0 (incubating) (RC1)
From: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>
To: bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f923de416aa4d04ca70bffd

--e89a8f923de416aa4d04ca70bffd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Anybody with commit access can be an RM. People on the PPMC will vote on
their results.

Cheers,
-g
On Sep 24, 2012 5:21 AM, "Gary Martin" <gary.martin@wandisco.com> wrote:

> I agree too. I will check for anything that is obviously blocking though.
> Would anyone consider volunteering for release manager duties this time
> (Bloodhound PPMC member only I believe).
>
> Cheers,
>     Gary
>
>
> On 09/23/2012 02:39 PM, Joe Dreimann wrote:
>
>> I'm with Greg on this. We should release every month in my opinion.
>>
>> - Joe
>>
>> ________________________
>> @jdreimann - Twitter
>> Sent from my phone
>>
>> On 23 Sep 2012, at 07:29, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  On Sep 23, 2012 12:05 AM, "Olemis Lang" <olemis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/21/12, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's been about 8 weeks... time to stop fixing, and start rolling?
>>>>>
>>>> There are some patches in the issue tracker , pending for commit .
>>>> Especially these tickets I consider important as they add some value
>>>> to what we shall propose , mainly regarding the UI .
>>>>
>>>> #203 , #53 , #138 , #139 , #201 , #45 , #174
>>>>
>>>> Beyond that , maybe we can postpone #146 and other tickets scheduled
>>>> for Release 2 , yet pending , for a forthcoming 0.2.1 , 0.3.0 , ...
>>>> whatever other release number it might be .
>>>>
>>> There are always future releases. IMO, no problem pushing changes out to
>>> the next one. This new release is better than the last, so you're in good
>>> shape.
>>>
>>> Further, if those patches in the tickets have not yet been applied, then
>>> maybe it is because they need some review, some testing, or whatever.
>>> They
>>> haven't (yet) been applied for some reason... so why delay further to
>>> wait
>>> for those reasons to be resolved? They'll hopefully be applied for the
>>> next-next release.
>>>
>>> (another happy benefit would be clearing out the IPMC concerns from the
>>> last release)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -g
>>>
>>
>

--e89a8f923de416aa4d04ca70bffd--