I've talked to a couple others that are still reviewing and planning to
vote. Just giving a chance for extra votes to come in and make sure
there are no issues. Especially since much of the 72 hours was over the
weekend and people may not have had time yesterday.

On 5/18/21 9:24 AM, Interrante, John A (GE Research, US) wrote:
> More than 72 hours have passed and we're up to 5 +1's now with no 0's or 
> -1's.  When will the release come out? :-)
> 
> John
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Wass <jwa...@gmail.com> 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 8:55 AM
> To: dev@daffodil.apache.org
> Subject: EXT: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil 3.1.0-rc2
> 
> +1
> 
> I checked
> 
> [OK] RPM install in centos 8 and fedora 32 [OK] spot check schematron 
> validation and svrl output [OK] misc CLI operations [OK] hash of each 
> download matches [OK] rat check passes [OK] use of staged artifacts in 
> existing applications
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 3:26 PM Steve Lawrence <slawre...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'd like to call a vote to release Apache Daffodil 3.1.0-rc2.
>>
>> All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be 
>> found at:
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/daffodil/3.1.0-rc2/
>>
>> Staging artifacts can be found at:
>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedaffodil-1
>> 023/
>>
>> This release has been signed with PGP key 36F3494B033AE661, 
>> corresponding to slawre...@apache.org, which is included in the KEYS 
>> file here:
>>
>> https://downloads.apache.org/daffodil/KEYS
>>
>> The release candidate has been tagged in git with v3.1.0-rc2.
>>
>> For reference, here is a list of all closed JIRAs tagged with 3.1.0:
>>
>> https://s.apache.org/daffodil-issues-3.1.0
>>
>> For a summary of the changes in this release, see:
>>
>> https://daffodil.apache.org/releases/3.1.0/
>>
>> Please review and vote. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours 
>> (Monday, 17 May 2021, 4pm EST).
>>
>> [ ] +1 approve
>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>
>>

Reply via email to