From general-return-37229-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Tue Aug 21 11:59:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2972ECAD8 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:59:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 90022 invoked by uid 500); 21 Aug 2012 11:59:26 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 89668 invoked by uid 500); 21 Aug 2012 11:59:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 89647 invoked by uid 99); 21 Aug 2012 11:59:24 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:59:24 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO zulu.local) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username brane, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:59:24 +0000 Message-ID: <5033781A.9010409@apache.org> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:59:22 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?QnJhbmtvIMSMaWJlag==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2 References: <502F896A.6020704@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3 Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAAXNSR0IArs4c6QAAADBQTFRF IhsbCy0qZjoVOVRoeFxSAIKBzXQiAKaibYiewnk7nn9z0qCTgL3i87Ep6Kx/+tHBsrE+zgAAAjZJ REFUOMvF0jFoE1EYB/CzjWlqIzaTjqVIBifRRWyG0t5iUqlLyFpCeXBgKg5yq6A4degUDJjoUDpc 1Qt4Ux94B11SOLB0KGS4discpbkORTCn9/m9d3fvLhXnvuHu3f+Xx/veyyfZfLSdZHzgicSfeyw4 JISwdz8FT6M8lM8Ceg385Dlhs+cC9sQCDn0B78QCogzwN+sxfHGOIXBbRGkNAM4cZymGtgNsDPgz cByxon3EEm1TLmvAlghoHOO3CZSa+IQ/vF6JV8tgKOMow78gRgL2/+EIvATOUtB3SSdMg4GXgrbn uk0uLiGdoCHKbX4E+t1FUTqn1AtIdPJebssDQ64YANSQyyaQNyUOFs0ijMsMFnOPTahPLXKYowtY 08MfCP7vR7hRnc5zmPK7CDYYbHcbC7tHuyFA94U/1LYZaJpu/sxACHMwvwZljTLY0TbNk4x+zuEt yC3MfCM6uSIvfwur0itFL4FA2Yal8BzLfnYV4EIGwEPAk7o5zIcnvzHMEjwJrrhAKK7on6IrsfRJ 7A53BhaK+CL7fj6+q/sPeOvcDTtoZTxpUYsFeIknrOXep3p3l7Ua+8sZ5FPQKyKwWi+DfROTU7ny C1/9UhpeY7K287WJCzbsNPQm2S6Yk4PSCNhWM2r3nD0K9liYb6yPgCRJhSzPrxUK0yUBVk1VX0lj s7MzGZyp0wImMK/e8rHbz2soL+O+2r1dxfGsAmBcx0lNjS/RUhlUC7gRn1wGMdQ7Vw1/AReW/RN3 xFWdAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote: > I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin. This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release. The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you justify this new requirement? It is not fair to the podling if the IPMC invents new requirements and reverses its own decisions for no apparent reason. This NOTICE issue certainly shouldn't be ground for vetoing a release. By the way, the same holds for binaries being included in the releases. The 3.4.0 release, with binaries, was approved. If the podling did not change its release procedures and policies and artefacts in the meantime, it's not reasonable to hold up what amounts to a security release solely based on the IPMC having screwed up the previous release vote. It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases. (N.B.: I use the term "essentially identical" in the sense that, whilst some of the sources have changed, the overall structure of the release artefacts has not.) -- Brane --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org