On 16 May 2012 09:18, Stephen Connolly <[email protected]> wrote: > -1 All releases require votes.
Just to clarify, this -1 is *not* with my Despot hat on. If a majority of the active mojo developers wish to vote +1 and none of the other Despots vote -1 *with* their hat on, then I would be open to going along with it. But it would need to be a clear majority, and within the time limit. BTW my -1 means there cannot be lazy consensus. > > If you want to have a shorter time period for a release I am fine with > that, but I think for anything less than 72h lazy consensus should not > apply, i.e. I have run votes in the past where the criteria was "3 x > +1 or 72h lazy consensus which ever comes first" > > -Stephen > > On 16 May 2012 01:03, Christopher Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi there, >> >> I propose that the Mojo project should not require votes for patch releases >> (see (1) for a comprehensive definition of a patch release). Voting requires >> a minimum of 72 hours to pass which may exceed a reasonable timeframe by >> which to deliver bug fixes. There should also be no barriers to fixing bugs >> in a release that is entirely backwardly compatible with its public API. >> >> [ ] +1 >> [ ] +0 >> [ ] -1 >> >> The vote is open for 72 hours and will succeed by lazy consensus. >> >> Kind regards, >> Christopher Hunt >> >> (1) http://semver.org/ >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: >> >> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
