@George: I will move that discussion to the vote thread on dev@openmeetings.apache.org, I don't think that there is a need to put that private.
About the release process, voting and potential fixes after the release: A RC is a candidate for a release. If there is no negative vote then it would be released. If the Vote is positive together with the release a branch "2.1" will be created. A potential critical issue could be fixed in that branch, any release (or release candidate) of that branch 2.1 would have the version name 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, et cetera. But while there is a candidate, you would just vote negative or raise an issue and the RC is rejected and create a new RC. About the two concrete issues that you've raised: 1) Why do we have the “Domain” field, which confuses users, when there is only one option to select? This option has no meaning to users, so why display it if there are no valid options for users to select? => This should really not happen at all. I actually never saw that behavior. I only get that checkbox if there are more then one option that you can choose from. Can you give some more details about that to reproduce it? 2) The field name “Username or mail”, what does “mail” mean? OK, I know that the actual text is “Username or mail address”, but the text gets truncated, and so the displayed text becomes incorrect wording. => that is odd and true. It is only a minor thing and probably nobody did realize that there is a word hidden behind the inbox :) I think its a 5 minutes thing to fix so it is probably no big deal to do that and create a second RC. @Maxim You are right about the wrong documentation. The Vote does not need any IPMC vote, since we graduated only our PMC vote is needed. Although as this is our first release we should be carefully reviewing our release and updating our guides to make sure that we completely understand the changes in the process as Top Level Project. So I think removing the Incubator specific part in the Release Process is fine. Sebastian 2013/3/8 George Kirkham <gkirk...@co2crc.com.au> > Two questions (relating to “Quality Control”);**** > > ** ** > > 1) What is the process of defining what are "bugs" and what are accepted > "features" ?**** > > ** ** > > 2) In regards to " Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 RC1", what is the process of > identifying and resolving bugs a) before and b) after release?**** > > ** ** > > I ask this as I am concerned about the stability of 2.1.0 RC1 ?, and I > noticed that [minor] interface issues that were in 2.0 are still in 2.1, > either people do not see these issues as bugs or they have been missed?*** > * > > ** ** > > Two obvious issues that have existed since 2.0;**** > > ** ** > > **1) **Why do we have the “Domain” field, which confuses users, when > there is only one option to select? This option has no meaning to users, so > why display it if there are no valid options for users to select? > > **** > > **2) **The field name “Username or mail”, what does “mail” mean? OK, I > know that the actual text is “Username or mail address”, but the text gets > truncated, and so the displayed text becomes incorrect wording. **** > > **** > > ** ** > > Yes it can be modified to look like the below image, but why do we still > have this issue?**** > > **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Thanks,**** > > ** ** > > George Kirkham**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > -----Original Message----- > From: Maxim Solodovnik [mailto:solomax...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, 7 March 2013 5:10 AM > To: priv...@openmeetings.apache.org > Subject: Fwd: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 1 > **** > > ** ** > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------**** > > From: Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com>**** > > Date: Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:09 AM**** > > Subject: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 Release Candidate 1**** > > To: dev <dev@openmeetings.apache.org>**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Dear OpenMeetings Community,**** > > ** ** > > I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 RC1 > **** > > ** ** > > Main changes are covered in the**** > > Readme:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC1/README**** > > ** ** > > Full Changelog: > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC1/CHANGELOG**** > > ** ** > > Release artefacts: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc1/**** > > ** ** > > Tag:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC1/**** > > ** ** > > PGP release keys (signed using C467526E):**** > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc1/KEYS**** > > ** ** > > Vote will be open for 72 hours.**** > > ** ** > > [ ] +1 approve**** > > [ ] +0 no opinion**** > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)**** > > ** ** > > My vote is +1.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > - -- **** > > WBR**** > > Maxim aka solomax**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > - -- **** > > WBR**** > > Maxim aka solomax**** > -- Sebastian Wagner https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock http://www.webbase-design.de http://www.wagner-sebastian.com seba.wag...@gmail.com
