+1 (binding) On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 11:11 AM Andy Grove <andygrov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (binding) > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 9:32 AM Benjamin Kietzman <bengil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > +1 (non binding) > > > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2021, 11:23 Eric Burden <eric.w.bur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2021, 10:19 AM Neal Richardson < > > > neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > We've had some discussion about ways to reduce the cost of releasing > > and > > > > ways to allow maintainers of subprojects to make more frequent > > > maintenance > > > > releases. In [1] we proposed allowing maintenance/patch releases on > > which > > > > we vote only to approve the source package, unlike our quarterly > major > > > > releases, where we vote on the source and on most binary packages as > > > well. > > > > Maintainers of the various implementations and subprojects may choose > > to > > > > build and publish binary artifacts from these patch release sources > > after > > > > the release vote, if there are relevant bug fixes in the patch > release. > > > > This procedure will allow us to make patch releases more easily, and > we > > > > maintain our shared mapping between a GitHub tag/commit and a release > > > > number across all subprojects. > > > > > > > > Please vote whether to adopt the patch release procedure. The vote > will > > > be > > > > open for at least 72 hours. > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 Allow source-only patch release votes > > > > [ ] +0 > > > > [ ] -1 Do not allow source-only patch release votes because... > > > > > > > > Here is my vote: +1 > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Neal > > > > > > > > [1]: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r0ff484bcf8e410730ddcba447ff0610e7138f16d035c43a4015da187%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > >
