Hi Folks, Can everyone please have a look at the authoritative source on how the VOTE'ing structure works. http://apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release This is important for us as the result now stands at
[5] +1 release OCW 1.0.0 Michael Joyce* Chris A. Mattmann* Lewis McGibbney* Daniel Gruno [1] -1 Kyo Lee* *OCW Project Management Committee binding VOTE Lewis On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney < lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Kyo, > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:49 AM, <dev-digest-h...@climate.apache.org> > wrote: > >> >> -1 Do not release the package because there are many important pull >> requests under pending now. >> I just wonder if there are any reasons to expedite the release. >> >> Thanks, >> Kyo >> >> > Thanks for taking the time to VOTE. > I would urge you to rethink your VOTE based upon the following. This VOTE > is based upon releasing the OCW 1.0.0 codebase as of September 3rd, 2015. > The pull requests which you refer to are independent from the 1.0.0 #1 > release candidate as posted on 3rd September, 2015. Baring in mind that 20 > days a quite a long time and I am not surprised that new code contributions > have arrived during that window. > Unless any of these subsequent issues which are now pending as commits to > the OCW codebase are "Blocking" or "Critical" in nature e.g. a critical bug > which has been introduced which renders the codebase unusable, then I am > very reluctant to see that as valid justification to block the release of a > functioning codebase packaged into the 1.0.0 release as presented by the > 1.0.0 RC#1 as posted above. > Does this make sense? > Would you consider changing your VOTE based on the above with us > provisionally agreeing to release OCQ 1.0.1 or 1.1 in a shorter time window? > Would be really nice to meet some consensus here Kyo. > Thanks > Lewis > -- *Lewis*
