I review my vote: -1
2013/3/10 seba.wag...@gmail.com <seba.wag...@gmail.com> > I appreciate all efforts going into that release but I think it needs some > more testing. > Therefore my vote is currently negative. > > Mainly because recording on OSX did not work > I will have to verify that on another box where windows is installed. > Testing machine OSX 10.8.2, java 1.6.0_43 > Database: Default derby build in database > Issues: > - Server needed 50% of the CPU as soon as I started to record in the > screensharing client (the java process of the server took 50% the > screensharing process took another 20-30 %). > After starting the recording, hitting the stop button just resulted in > nothing. > > I am also a bit concerned about the Flash Players CPU usage. In previous > versions I think the usage of the CPU was significant lower when you did a > share your cam+mic. > But I first need to verify that using the old release to have some concrete > numbers. > > The Clustering feature is also not ready to be officially released. The > release notes say nothing about the missing components. > For example: Whiteboard not stored in database, chat not stored in database > (which both has minor effects when not done however this would be essential > to know for anybody doing tests with it). > The overall chat is not stored in the database and also not synced between > cluster nodes, so that the initial node of the cluster should be the same > for anybody connecting to openmeetings (also this has only minor effects > but nowhere documented). > Server user/pass is nowhere in use but still to be in the database. > After all there is only a single 3th party verification of the cluster. > The feature is of beta quality. > > Sebastian > > > > > > > 2013/3/8 Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> > > > That's a pity :( > > I was sure all blocking issues are resolved. (There was mail thread with > > "release" bug list) > > > > @George can you create issues in JIRA? > > > > @Sebastian currently I'm modifying Release guide "on the fly" I'll update > > it with all my steps, so it will be up-to-date > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 9:10 AM, George Kirkham <gkirk...@co2crc.com.au > > >wrote: > > > > > -1 > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > I personally believe we should delay the release of RC1 while we attend > > to > > > minor design/GUI and bug issues. > > > > > > During this time that Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.0 RC1 is going through > > > testing and bug fixes, development [of new features] could continue > with > > > Apache OpenMeetings 2.2. > > > > > > My reasoning is that people I show OpenMeetings to are impressed with > its > > > capabilities but are really turned off by the obvious issues with the > > > system, for example text that flows over or under other test or fields > in > > > the windows/dialog boxes. > > > > > > Now that we are with Apache, I would really appreciate it if > OpenMeetings > > > did not have these little but annoying issues/bugs and that we put > > forward > > > a much more professional and polished product. An easy to use, > > consistent, > > > and stable application. New features can be added along the way with > > > version 2.2, but we really should get to a position where what we have > > for > > > 2.1.0 RC1 is well designed and maintained. > > > > > > When people complain about the look and feel (and they are correct to > > > complain), it really upsets me, and my users do complain, not loudly, > but > > > it is obvious that they do not appreciate these minor issues that > detract > > > from an otherwise great application, I would request that we attend to > > > these issues before we release OpenMeetings version 2.1. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 >
