I'd be willing to join in. I have AIM and Skype accounts. However, I'm going away on vacation 1/12 - 1/21, so I don't think I'd be most appropriate to be the RM this go around. But, at least if I participate in some form, I'll be prepared for the next go-around.
Another option is to use #cayenne on freenode, which consists mostly of just me, so there shouldn't be a noise problem. -- Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 12:36 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Re: Cayenne 2.0.2 (and 1.2.2) > > Ok - this vote, that was to gather lazy consensus to go ahead with > 2.0.2 and 1.0.2 is also closed. > > +1 Andrus Adamchik > +1 Malcolm Edgar > +1 Tore Halset > +1 Kevin Menard > +1 Michael Gentry > > Let's move ahead with it. > > There was a suggestion to better document a release procedure > so that any of the Cayenne committers could do it. So I'd > like to offer this > - how about we do the release on IM with one other volunteer > committer and then document it together (I've seen Geronimo > doing something like that). Aside from spreading the > knowledge, one area where I can use some help is testing with > Oracle, Sybase, and DB2, as my old test server went bust, and > I don't have access to any of those at the moment. > > Any volunteers to participate in the release assembly and or > test on those DB's? > > I should be available most of the time on Wednesday, January 10th. > > Andrus > > P.S. I know the word "IM" generates lots of bad reaction. > Here IMO using IM is totally appropriate since we won't be > changing (or planning to change) the code, but rather > executing a standard release sequence, using IM only to > coordinate testing. If anyone thinks this is bad - tell me why. > > > > On Jan 4, 2007, at 3:16 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote: > >> (That's +1 from me, but I'd also like to do a formal vote > thread once > >> we see that there is a consensus) > > > > The way it goes, this might as well be considered a vote > thread, so I > > am renaming it for easier identification. > > > > Andrus > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 3, 2007, at 8:13 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote: > >> Good idea. Probably do 1.2.2 at the same time, so that the > users can > >> choose the variety they want. > >> > >> (That's +1 from me, but I'd also like to do a formal vote > thread once > >> we see that there is a consensus) > >> > >> Andrus > >> > >> > >> On Jan 3, 2007, at 8:05 PM, Kevin Menard wrote: > >>> Are we waiting on anything for a 2.0.2 release? If not, > I'd like to > >>> propose a vote for a new release. There have been some important > >>> bugfixes since 2.0.1 and it'd be nice to get it out as a > maintenance > >>> release. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Kevin > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
