Hi,
On 07/16/2012 09:46 AM, Joachim Dreimann wrote:
That all sounds good to me. I suggest #32 is important and requires
little effort to include it.
To vote on the release, do we just reply to this Email or will there
be a separate vote count?
+1 for release
- Joe
On 16 July 2012 03:58, Gary Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
As you may have noticed, I have been talking about the preparation of a
release candidate for Apache Bloodhound. I believe I have much of the
information I require to sign the release appropriately (and I prepared one
earlier this evening) but I am not sure where to upload a release candidate
for our review at the moment. Licensing meanwhile appears to be in
reasonable shape to me.
As for tickets, I don't think that there are any blockers although we could
incorporate the changes mentioned in
https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/32 and
https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/136. I also intend to delete the
installer.py script as the alternative bloodhound_setup.py is working well
to close https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/126. I think all the
remaining tickets can be moved on to the next milestone.
Anyway, in the meantime, I thought I should propose that we vote on a
release. I expect the release to go out with the name
apache-bloodhound-incubating-0.1, based on the new 0.1 branch.
Cheers,
Gary
I was considering going straight to a [VOTE] before realising that is
not the pattern we have used before. Given that it is probably best to
move things on, I was hoping that it is not completely out of line with
good Apache process to gauge a general consensus in this thread, create
a signed release and then open the official vote for whether to release
that.
Joe: I think it is best to go with the assumption that, as there is no
specific question is formulated in a vote thread, a +1 in a prior
discussion thread does not indicate a vote for the motion.
Is there a standard period over which to run release votes?
Cheers,
Gary
