I like the suggestion to have a discussion thread before a formal vote. It gives time for people to voice concerns about a given release before it becomes stable. (good or bad). It seems like a vote should also be based on a tag and snapshot so it's more obvious what is actually being voted on (effectively a formal RC tag)
-----Original Message----- From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:04 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: Voting procedures WAS: [VOTE] Release PMD Plugin We need to have better voting procedures, because it's hard to see what the official count is amongst the discussion. It seems the thread where Jason said these were under way was not explicit enough, so my suggestion is: 1) we stop the PMD vote thread now. Daniel's two issues are indeed blockers (I understand the first has been done, but I believe we also need to change the header in every file?) 2) we hold a separate [discuss] thread on releases before casting a vote I don't want to be a bureaucrat, but all this +1 but fix this, -1 I want this, etc is not giving a very clear impression of what the result will be. Besides this, in the past we've agreed we need to reset the vote any time SVN changes occur anyway, so this isn't really setting these releases back any further. - Brett On 07/11/2006, at 12:55 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > -1 (non-binding) for a different set of reasons: > > 1) The generated Jar does NOT have the required LICENSE and NOTICE > files > in it. That is now (as of Nov 1) a REQUIREMENT of all Apache > releases. > I believe this would be considered a show stopper by the board. > > 2) I'm getting a test failure on my machine. I'll look into it a bit > more this afternoon if I get some time. Stack trace: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------- > Test set: org.apache.maven.plugin.pmd.CpdReportTest > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------- > Tests run: 3, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: > 0.626 sec > <<< FAILURE! > testCustomConfiguration(org.apache.maven.plugin.pmd.CpdReportTest) > Time > elapsed: 0.161 sec <<< FAILURE! > junit.framework.AssertionFailedError > at junit.framework.Assert.fail(Assert.java:47) > at junit.framework.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:20) > at junit.framework.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:27) > at > org.apache.maven.plugin.pmd.CpdReportTest.testCustomConfiguration(Cpd > ReportTest.java:112) > > > Dan > > > > On Sunday November 05 2006 10:40 pm, Joakim Erdfelt wrote: >> Hi, >> >> It has been 3 months since the last release of the maven-pmd-plugin, >> Since then, there has been a refactoring of the excludes logic to >> bring >> harmony to the pmd and cpd reports, been numerous fixes to correct >> various site generation failures, updates to allow for build >> output of >> pmd violations, updates to the documentation to bring it inline with >> the plugin documentation effort, and the ability to perform a >> pmd:check >> based on severity level. >> >> I would like to call a vote for Releasing the PMD Plugin. >> >> Here's my +1. >> >> Standard 72 hour voting window. >> >> Joakim Erdfelt >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > J. Daniel Kulp > Principal Engineer > IONA > P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 F:781-902-8001 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
