On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Robert Newson <robert.new...@gmail.com> wrote: > If my MSDN thing ever goes through from the ASF, I'm prepared to spend > some spare time on getting couch working on Windows. It sounds like > the OTP issues are resolved, which was the worst part. > > Do we have enough votes to ship this puppy or what? >
We have enough votes but its illegal to ship animals through the USPS without filling out a lot of forms. I'd rather avoid it if at all possible. > B. > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> On 26 Jan 2011, at 13:03, Jan Lehnardt wrote: >> >>> In this case I don't care much if we record any of this (no objections >>> either). What I am after is that the fact that for reliable storage on >>> Windows Erlang R14B1 is required for 1.0.2 should be noted in a place where >>> people downloading or reading up on 1.0.2 are looking (i.e. the release >>> announcement mail, which gets syndicated to many news sites as well as the >>> download page, where, duh, the download happens). >> >> Sure. But I'm just trying to clarify how we handle this, so that we can >> apply it to future releases as well. If there's been a minimum required >> version in the past, we usually put it in the README. >> >> We have never, to date, included any minimum version information in either >> the release announcement or on the downloads page. If the community feels >> that this is important enough in this case to warrant breaking with that >> convention, then so be it. >> >> But I'm trying to get a handle on when this is likely to happen again, so >> that we can ratify it in our release procedure. >
