We have 3 binding +1s, 0 +0s, 0 -1s. We have 1 non-binding +1.
Since the 4th of July weekend impacted this vote, let's keep it open till tomorrow morning so that more testing can be done on it. I will close the vote then. Thanks all for your participation! Antoine On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 08:58, Alex Boisvert <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for the release; though I won't be able to test it until Tuesday. > > The rationale for such quick release is to resolve an install issue > with json-pure dependency. And we agreed to handle install issues > more promptly than in the past. > > alex > > On Friday, July 2, 2010, Rhett Sutphin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Antoine, > > > > On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Antoine Toulme wrote: > > > >> Thanks Daniel. > >> > >> Yes, Alex said we should a maintenance release in a couple of weeks > after > >> 1.4. > >> > >> I would also like to start delivering releases on time! > >> > >> Rhett, thanks for finding out that problem. I will apply your approach > for > >> 1.4.2. I suggest we vote this release and I'll just bump the version > when I > >> run the release task. Sorry for that oversight. > > > > Sounds good. A non-binding +1 from me, then. > > > > Rhett > > > > > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 09:51, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> Alrighty then. I'm generally in favor of rapid releases myself, I just > >>> wanted to be sure that we weren't rushing things. > >>> > >>> I vote +1 on the release. Oh and Antoine, don't think your hard work > on > >>> this release has gone unnoticed. I saw all of that JIRA and SVN > activity! > >>> > >>> Daniel > >>> > >>> On Jul 2, 2010, at 11:47 AM, "Rhett Sutphin" < > [email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Daniel, > >>>> > >>>> On Jul 2, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Daniel Spiewak wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Doesn't it seem just a little quick to be pushing out 1.4.1? I don't > >>> object > >>>>> too strenuously, but it just seems a bit weird. > >>>> > >>>> I'm in favor of it. Frequent releases let the project adapt to > changing > >>> circumstances and fix critical bugs before they scare off potential new > >>> adopters. Many successful projects have frequent releases -- one I can > >>> think of in particular is hudson, which has a release every week. > >>>> > >>>> So long as the changes are well documented and there's a good > (passing) > >>> test suite (both of which are the case with buildr), there's no need > for > >>> months to elapse between releases. > >>>> > >>>> Rhett > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Daniel > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Antoine Toulme < > [email protected] > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> We're voting on the source distributions available here: > >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/< > >>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Specifically: > >>>>>> > http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.tgz< > >>> > http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.tgz> > >>>>>> > http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.zip< > >>> > http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.zip> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The documentation generated for this release is available here: > >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/< > >>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/> > >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/buildr.pdf< > >>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/buildr.pdf> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The official specification against which this release was tested: > >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/specs.html< > >>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/specs.html> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Test coverage report: > >>>>>> > >>> http://people.apache.org/~ < > http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/coverage/index.html> >
